• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The results are in on social security

I think people should have the choice whether to opt out of Social Security. If the funds are as plentiful as being claimed, there should be no worries about people jumping the -SS Enterprise.
 
right. and then because that won't get you enough (literally, it won't get you enough), what do you do after that?


there is only one way that we could fully fund Social Security. We would have to virtually get rid of Medicare. that's the only pile of costs big enough to cover that gap. :D have a good time choosing, boomers! I suspect you will F*$& this up the same way you have F*$&'d up everything else you have touched :).


The surplus would not have to be paid back in one go now would it.


Outside of progam cuts and tax increases you can have the government replace debt owed to SS with public debt
 
The surplus would not have to be paid back in one go now would it.

no, just in increasing amounts going forward. depending on our growth rate from here on out, somewhere between 2020 and 2025 we will have to decide whether we wish to fully fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or whether we wish instead to have a Federal Government - because we will only have the funds for one of them. and if (lord help us) we ever try to actually implement Obamacare, we probably have less time than that.

Outside of progam cuts and tax increases you can have the government replace debt owed to SS with public debt

you aren't going to get more than 19% of GDP in revenue on any kind of a consistent basis. and (see above), that 19% of GDP will only pay for the entitlements. this means that the "programs to be cut" will include the entire DOD, the Department of energy, the Department of the Interior, Homeland Security, the Border patrol, the FBI, Department of Justice, Food Stamps, Welfare..... you get the idea.
 
no, just in increasing amounts going forward. depending on our growth rate from here on out, somewhere between 2020 and 2025 we will have to decide whether we wish to fully fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or whether we wish instead to have a Federal Government - because we will only have the funds for one of them. and if (lord help us) we ever try to actually implement Obamacare, we probably have less time than that.



you aren't going to get more than 19% of GDP in revenue on any kind of a consistent basis. and (see above), that 19% of GDP will only pay for the entitlements. this means that the "programs to be cut" will include the entire DOD, the Department of energy, the Department of the Interior, Homeland Security, the Border patrol, the FBI, Department of Justice, Food Stamps, Welfare..... you get the idea.

You certainly could get more money then 19% of GDP for the federal government. Plenty of other countries do it, I am sure if the US put its mind to it, it could as well
 
You certainly could get more money then 19% of GDP for the federal government. Plenty of other countries do it, I am sure if the US put its mind to it, it could as well

There's No Escaping Hauser's Law

Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this "Hauser's Law."

Over this period there have been more than 30 major changes in the tax code including personal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, investment tax credits, depreciation schedules, Social Security taxes, and the number of tax brackets among others. Yet during this period, federal government tax collections as a share of GDP have moved within a narrow band of just under 19% of GDP.

Why? Higher taxes discourage the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurship. When tax rates are raised, taxpayers are encouraged to shift, hide and underreport income. Taxpayers divert their effort from pro-growth productive investments to seeking tax shelters, tax havens and tax exempt investments. This behavior tends to dampen economic growth and job creation. Lower taxes increase the incentives to work, produce, save and invest, thereby encouraging capital formation and jobs. Taxpayers have less incentive to shelter and shift income.

On average, GDP has grown at a faster pace in the several quarters after taxes are lowered than the several quarters before the tax reductions. In the six quarters prior to the May 2003 Bush tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 1.8%. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, GDP grew at an average annual quarterly rate of 3.8%. Yet taxes as a share of GDP have remained within a relatively narrow range as a percent of GDP in the entire post-World War II period....​


hauser.gif
 
Increase taxes and cut spending on general programs

According to economist, Robert Reich, raising the FICA cap to from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the foreseeable future.
 
According to economist, Robert Reich, raising the FICA cap to from the current $106,000 to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the foreseeable future.

I say kick the cap up to $300K for all the boomers entering their golden years.Kinda a belt and suspender thing.:2wave:
 
good idea. while we're at it, let's impose a 2-cent taxes on left-handed baseball gloves. It will work just about as well.
 
I say kick the cap up to $300K for all the boomers entering their golden years.Kinda a belt and suspender thing.:2wave:

And don't forget to boost their benefits commensurately. Democrats wouldn't want to stigmatize Social Security as a welfare program and thus make it lose the little remaining legitimacy it has.
 
wait a minute....

....surely you're not suggesting that the increase in expenditures could wipe out the gains from increased revenue!?!

:shock:
 
I say kick the cap up to $300K for all the boomers entering their golden years.Kinda a belt and suspender thing.:2wave:
I think we should jack the payroll deduction up on those registered Democrats. Guys like you.
 
I think we should jack the payroll deduction up on those registered Democrats. Guys like you.

and tax public union pension benefits at the highest marginal rate.
 
QUOTERiverDad

And don't forget to boost their benefits commensurately.


No need to boost benefits just reinstate the COLA that they have been without for the last two years. Has your grocery bill been stable for the last two years?


Democrats wouldn't want to stigmatize Social Security as a welfare program

What welfare program requires the recipient pay into it their whole working lives?


and thus make it lose the little remaining legitimacy it has.


Hhmm…the last I seen SS was favored by, 65% in favor and 20% opposed. Maybe I get my news from a different source. ABC / WaPo/.

DRATS…fox wasn’t in that one.Sorry.:(
 
I think we should jack the payroll deduction up on those registered Democrats. Guys like you.

OH LOOK!! American changed his aviator. Might want to switch from the ancient monitor you’re gazing into, to a crystal ball, seeing as you seem to think that I’m a “registered Democrat “.:lamo
 
good idea. while we're at it, let's impose a 2-cent taxes on left-handed baseball gloves. It will work just about as well.

Explain why you think that raising the FICA cap to $180,000 would not make SS solvent for the long term?
 
Back
Top Bottom