Entitlement Reform

[Waddy]

trump is not running this show. he goes along to get along.

it is paul ryan, mitch McConnell and the rest of the republicans in congress.

Then I won't worry; those guys are pretty inept on their own. As are the Democrats. Trump, though, is a game changer. He makes things happen. He's the most effective politician I've seen in a long time. But he has promised hands off on those programs.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

my parents are both on Medicare, and they like it. i'll take it as is, and vote for something more like Medicaid for all.

The point is, that despite paying into Medicare all your working life, it's not free when you are eligible to take advantage. It still comes with a monthly premium. And if everyone of all adult ages ends up on it, that premium will sky rocket. I am glad that your parents like Medicare, however I imagine they added a decent advantage plan and a prescription plan to make it work. Medicare part A and B alone are not worth used toilet paper. As for Medicaid, that is an entitlement and it is intended for the truly poor. That's why it was insanely stupid to incorporate it into Obamacare and offer it to those with incomes at 400% of the official federal poverty level

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Are you kidding me? It is 'invested' (as in bears interest) as required by law. What, exactly, would you like our congress critters to invest those public funds in? Perhaps businesses in their districts/states (or run by friends/campaign cash donors) like Solyndra might promise great returns and might even be called 'green' too. The last thing that we want (or need) is for congress critters to give themselves the power to 'invest' public funds into (carefully selected?) 'private' business ventures - that would instantly become 'crony capitalism' on steroids.

The problem is that the 'revenue stream' (the flat rate FICA payroll tax on current workers) is not keeping pace with 'expenses' (benefits being paid to current retirees). The dates for that imbalance to occur (if no changes are made) are well known and get closer each year - Medicare is already there with Social Security fairly close behind.

If it were set up right, it would not be the government managing the investments. It would be private investment firms. The government would have the role of auditing the investment firms. Most privately managed retirement funds have done quite well. For example, if as GWB proposed, we had been allowed to direct even as little as 2.5% of our payroll deductions to a privately managed fund, the earnings would outpace what we earn from Social Security. The US Government absolutely sucks at money management.

 

[code1211]

You can dig up whatever 'official' numbers that you like but the US Treasury Department made that call.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/us/politics/federal-deficit-2018-trump-tax-cuts.html

https://reason.com/blog/2018/10/15/its-official-2018s-federal-deficit-the-l

The link from the NYT is interesting. I was trying to find the actual increase or decrease in the tax collections stated as real dollars. It never listed them that I could find. Did you? They showed this only as a percent of the economy.

Given the growth of the economy, listing collections as a percent of the economy would certainly show a decrease even if there was a small uptick in the actual dollars collected.

What seems to be clear is that the rate of taxation dropped and the total dollars collected stayed about the same with a very small increase. As always, Federal Spending increased. Interestingly, even with the drop in personal rates, the collections in personal tax increased.

What may we glean from this?

As always, our spending problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Whether we're talking about running a Ponzi Scheme to support Social Security or maintaining a defense net to cover the lack of responsibility by our allies, we are spending to much stupidly.

 

[Helix]

The point is, that despite paying into Medicare all your working life, it's not free when you are eligible to take advantage. It still comes with a monthly premium. And if everyone of all adult ages ends up on it, that premium will sky rocket. I am glad that your parents like Medicare, however I imagine they added a decent advantage plan and a prescription plan to make it work. Medicare part A and B alone are not worth used toilet paper. As for Medicaid, that is an entitlement and it is intended for the truly poor. That's why it was insanely stupid to incorporate it into Obamacare and offer it to those with incomes at 400% of the official federal poverty level

i didn't claim that it would be free. i would trade my current bi-weekly premium for it, though.

the fact is that we pay much more for health care than any other first world country. we can do a lot better.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Yet you likely agree that SS/Medicare could be (fairly?) called 'entitlements' if the use of general revenue was required to fund them. Of course, we are also forced to pay federal income and excise taxes (to create that general revenue) which makes even that into a distinction with little difference.

No, I absolutely would not agree that SS and Medicare could be called entitlements if the feds used general funds to put back what they stole from the SS and Medicare Trust funds. Those programs were not sold to the American tax payers as income tax. They were sold as mandatory retirement programs.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i didn't claim that it would be free. i would trade my current bi-weekly premium for it, though.

Right at this point in time, if you can afford to add parts C: and D: when you reach that age, it will work like insurance. However for a program that you pay into all of your working life and still face premiums when you retire, it's not worth a **** unless you add parts C: and D:. (though some Part C plans include prescription coverage).

the fact is that we pay much more for health care than any other first world country. we can do a lot better.

It has not always been that way. When I first joined the work force, I barely noticed the payroll deductions for health insurance. Health insurance gradually became prohibitively expensive over two primaries causes, government tinkering with the healthcare system and out of control frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. The more the government tinkered, the more expensive healthcare has become. Ultimately the only fix is returning healthcare to market forces rather then government edict. When that happens, competition will bring the costs down. And once again, while your parents like Medicae, if we go single payor, that is what everyone will end up with, however with the entire adult population on Medicare, the costs will rapidly rise to the point to where you are paying the same ultra high premiums you are paying now.......and for rationed healthcare.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If it were set up right, it would not be the government managing the investments. It would be private investment firms. The government would have the role of auditing the investment firms. Most privately managed retirement funds have done quite well. For example, if as GWB proposed, we had been allowed to direct even as little as 2.5% of our payroll deductions to a privately managed fund, the earnings would outpace what we earn from Social Security. The US Government absolutely sucks at money management.

That, of course, assumes that there is a surplus of FICA revenue to 'invest' and that congress critters could agree on how to select these 'private' firms worthy of public trust. That is not current reality.

 

[Helix]

Right at this point in time, if you can afford to add parts C: and D: when you reach that age, it will work like insurance. However for a program that you pay into all of your working life and still face premiums when you retire, it's not worth a **** unless you add parts C: and D:. (though some Part C plans include prescription coverage).



It has not always been that way. When I first joined the work force, I barely noticed the payroll deductions for health insurance. Health insurance gradually became prohibitively expensive over two primaries causes, government tinkering with the healthcare system and out of control frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. The more the government tinkered, the more expensive healthcare has become. Ultimately the only fix is returning healthcare to market forces rather then government edict. When that happens, competition will bring the costs down. And once again, while your parents like Medicae, if we go single payor, that is what everyone will end up with, however with the entire adult population on Medicare, the costs will rapidly rise to the point to where you are paying the same ultra high premiums you are paying now.......and for rationed healthcare.

i'm willing to take the risk and trade our system for what the rest of the first world has. if it's the apocalypse that the right claims that it will be, we will be the first advanced country to experience that. then we can tweak the system and make it work like it works everywhere else.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The link from the NYT is interesting. I was trying to find the actual increase or decrease in the tax collections stated as real dollars. It never listed them that I could find. Did you? They showed this only as a percent of the economy.

Given the growth of the economy, listing collections as a percent of the economy would certainly show a decrease even if there was a small uptick in the actual dollars collected.

What seems to be clear is that the rate of taxation dropped and the total dollars collected stayed about the same with a very small increase. As always, Federal Spending increased. Interestingly, even with the drop in personal rates, the collections in personal tax increased.

What may we glean from this?

As always, our spending problem is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Whether we're talking about running a Ponzi Scheme to support Social Security or maintaining a defense net to cover the lack of responsibility by our allies, we are spending to much stupidly.

You can find, with a quick internet search, that the 'actual decrease' of corporate federal income tax revenue from 2017 to 2018 was $92B. That 'actual decrease' accounts for 17% of the federal deficit increase with the rest (83%) being from increased federal spending.

 

[cpwill]

We need to make our tax system more progressive and expand healthcare and retirement benefits, not the reverse.

Your claims are in tension with each other. If you want to be able to afford expanding government spending, you can't do it by taxing the rich. Instead, you have to do what other nations who try that do : tax the bejeezus out of the middle and lower income class.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

We need to make our tax system more progressive and expand healthcare and retirement benefits, not the reverse.

That (tax someone else more and spend more on me) plan always looks good on paper yet "the rich" tend to pass increased taxation costs (as they do with any other costs) on to those that buy their products/services. Even a flat rate income tax can be quite progressive (effectively) if the truly standard deduction is raised to prevent trying to tax away that which is needed for covering basic living expenses.

 

[Rosie1]

Trumpists like to mislabel SS and Medicare as "entitlements," because that makes them sound spookier.

Agreed, I have always disliked the term entitlement" used by right wingers for that very reason. "Insurance" is more accurate. You are referring to SS and Medicare insurance that people have paid into all their working lives. And there are some who don't live long enough to collect those benefits. (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/health/us-life-expectancy-study/index.htm) article about drop in US life expectancy.

 

[distraff]

That (tax someone else more and spend more on me) plan always looks good on paper yet "the rich" tend to pass increased taxation costs (as they do with any other costs) on to those that buy their products/services. Even a flat rate income tax can be quite progressive (effectively) if the truly standard deduction is raised to prevent trying to tax away that which is needed for covering basic living expenses.

If that is true, then we should see much lower inflation after tax cuts because when the rich got a tax cut they passed on their savings to consumers. That hasn't happened.

 

[distraff]

Your claims are in tension with each other. If you want to be able to afford expanding government spending, you can't do it by taxing the rich. Instead, you have to do what other nations who try that do : tax the bejeezus out of the middle and lower income class.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

Other developed countries pay 2 1/2 less than we do on healthcare, and spend as much public spending as we do for the entire population. So if we just reform our healthcare we can cover 100% of the population at the same cost, and remove the cost of those private premiums and out of pocket. We can reform social security to be tax-payer funded 401Ks which along with make it affordable again. Also, eliminate all welfare spending expect the small amount of food stamps. There you go. Your welcome.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

That, of course, assumes that there is a surplus of FICA revenue to 'invest' and that congress critters could agree on how to select these 'private' firms worthy of public trust. That is not current reality.

True. However the government certainly has not proved worthy.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i'm willing to take the risk and trade our system for what the rest of the first world has. if it's the apocalypse that the right claims that it will be, we will be the first advanced country to experience that. then we can tweak the system and make it work like it works everywhere else.

Since when has the US government been successful at tweaking anything regarding healthcare. If the healthcare system is not market based, it's simply not going to work. The government spends as little money as possible on actual healthcare. Medicare and the VA are proof of that. If you remove the profit motive, you get government bean counters and rationed healthcare. You may think you want a Medicare system for all adults now, however if such occurs, you will regret it when retirement time comes.

 

[ChezC3]

SS and Medicare aren't going anywhere, stop with the theatrical BS...

 

[JMR]

To answer your question; yes it would be wrong. It is a dubious extrapolation of what the Cap wrote. Further, where did you glean that question from his/her post?
Regards,
CP

He clearly wrote that he is voting for economy, trade, borders, guns....and then hoping after doing so, that GOP will protect SS. Can't see why you are confused.

 

[CRModeration]

I agree with your summation, but question your pointing a finger at those who collect today, or tomorrow. I wasn't born when the funds were diverted for WW1 or WW2, but no matter, no one should feel guilty for getting back their money, should they?
Regards,
CP

Sorry for the late reply.

I mostly just expect by the time I will be the age to collect SS or use Medicare, it would have to drastically change by that point. I'm already preparing for a future where those programs won't be effective retirement strategies, so I can't necessarily relate to those paying into it. I have no problem paying those taxes, but I just assume I will never be able to collect on that, especially with the size of the millennial generation and the lack of kids we are having to cover our own pool.

It think it's time for people 35 or under to really start focusing on a future without those programs, I can't see how they are sustainable by the time we get to that age.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Sorry for the late reply.

I mostly just expect by the time I will be the age to collect SS or use Medicare, it would have to drastically change by that point. I'm already preparing for a future where those programs won't be effective retirement strategies, so I can't necessarily relate to those paying into it. I have no problem paying those taxes, but I just assume I will never be able to collect on that, especially with the size of the millennial generation and the lack of kids we are having to cover our own pool.

It think it's time for people 35 or under to really start focusing on a future without those programs, I can't see how they are sustainable by the time we get to that age.

The problem with that plan is that very few people under 35 have both the means and the grit to do what you are doing.

 

[Waddy]

trump is not running this show. he goes along to get along.

it is paul ryan, mitch McConnell and the rest of the republicans in congress.

You don't get to have it both ways. You can't blame Trump for things and then turn around and say he doesn't run things. And why should anyone worry about "making SS and Medicare solvent" when no one takes that approach to welfare or Medicaid. No one pays anything into either of those, so they are by design always in the red, but at least working people pay into SS and Medicare. If deficits don't matter regarding welfare or Medicaid, then they sure as he** shouldn't matter regarding SS or Medicare.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Get rid of, nope, slash funding, yeup. This is one issue the GOP needs To avoid other than ensuring that both Medicare and SS remain viable, to do otherwise would cost them politically for decades.

Only the Democrats have actually gone as far as slashing spending on those two programs. And they did so to help finance that insanely stupid healthcare bill, known as Obamacare.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Casper]

Only the Democrats have actually gone as far as slashing spending on those two programs. And they did so to help finance that insanely stupid healthcare bill, known as Obamacare.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well then, if true, there should be plenty of money with the Repubs and Trump killing off obsmacare, problem solved.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Well then, if true, there should be plenty of money with the Repubs and Trump killing off obsmacare, problem solved.

Unfortunately Obamacare has not yet been completely repealed. And I doubt that the remaining RINOs in the Republican party will gain enough spine to do so. Though they did kill the individual mandate, which will at least lead to the A.C A. dying a slow death under it's own weight. When that happens, I will celebrate and change my moniker.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk