Fixing social security

[Alpine01]

I can hear tiny violins playing.

You will be hard pressed to find another industry with a more robust safety net than production agriculture. They get heavily subsidized crop insurance, crop price supports, disaster relief, and on and on.

We should all be so lucky.

I think you need to go back and read one of my earlier posts. I would be all for removing all farm subsidies and let the end consumer experience the true cost of the food they buy including the necessary insurance needed to cover crop losses, etc. that each farmer will need to carry baked into those costs. Let the true fair market play out. But I can hear the wailing from the masses already as the "poor" will feel the impact far more than the rich. Farm subsidies significantly benefit the poor more so than the rich as the rich pay the bulk of the income tax burden that covers those subsidies and the poor realize the benefit of food costs well below a true market value. So yes, you are lucky.

 

[SAJ-99]

Reporting their income would be a good start.

Hunter Biden asks judge to dismiss tax charges, saying they're politically motivated

Hunter Biden's attorneys argued Wednesday that the federal tax charges the president's son is facing in California are part of a prosecution fueled by politics.

www.cbsnews.com

Fully staffing the IRS is a good start.

 

[Alpine01]

Maybe if some people actually paid income tax - ss would work.

You do know that SS taxes are separate from income taxes right? Please tell me you do and I just missed the \sarcasm\ switch.

 

[Nick87]

Fully staffing the IRS is a good start.

Wouldn't both be?

 

[406dn]

I think you need to go back and read one of my earlier posts. I would be all for removing all farm subsidies and let the end consumer experience the true cost of the food they buy including the necessary insurance needed to cover crop losses, etc. that each farmer will need to carry baked into those costs. Let the true fair market play out. But I can hear the wailing from the masses already as the "poor" will feel the impact far more than the rich. Farm subsidies significantly benefit the poor more so than the rich as the rich pay the bulk of the income tax burden that covers those subsidies and the poor realize the benefit of food costs well below a true market value. So yes, you are lucky.

You and I both know the farming subsidies aren't going anywhere.

Nobody lobbies and whines more effectively than the farm community.

So, at least set up a straw man that is semi plausible.

 

[Alpine01]

Back to fixing social security ...

My suggestion is phase it out along something like this:
1. Current retirees get the full benefits the USG promised in the first place.
2. Workers age 55-67 (current retirement age at full benefits) get 100% of the promised benefits. THey have been putting into the system their entire working careers.
3. Workers age 45-55 get 80% of the original promised benefits - they haven't contributed as long and have had access to alternate 401K programs for their entire working career, allow them access "catch-up" limits (pre-tax) currently reserved to 50-yr old and up and increase those limits so that they can contribute more
4. Workers age 35-45 get 30-50% of the original promised benefits but up the amount they can contribute pre-tax to 401K's so they can build their retirement accounts
5. Workers under 35 get 0% - yep their screwed from a S-S perspective but they haven't contributed significantly to the ponzi scheme so they aren't losing a great deal anyway. In return they should be allowed to contribute a higher percentage to their 401K (or similar plan thatis pre-tax/tax deferred) and employers should be allowed/encouraged/pushed to match to a higher percentage.

 

[406dn]

Back to fixing social security ...

My suggestion is phase it out along something like this:
1. Current retirees get the full benefits the USG promised in the first place.
2. Workers age 55-67 (current retirement age at full benefits) get 100% of the promised benefits. THey have been putting into the system their entire working careers.
3. Workers age 45-55 get 80% of the original promised benefits - they haven't contributed as long and have had access to alternate 401K programs for their entire working career, allow them access "catch-up" limits (pre-tax) currently reserved to 50-yr old and up and increase those limits so that they can contribute more
4. Workers age 35-45 get 30-50% of the original promised benefits but up the amount they can contribute pre-tax to 401K's so they can build their retirement accounts
5. Workers under 35 get 0% - yep their screwed from a S-S perspective but they haven't contributed significantly to the ponzi scheme so they aren't losing a great deal anyway. In return they should be allowed to contribute a higher percentage to their 401K (or similar plan thatis pre-tax/tax deferred) and employers should be allowed/encouraged/pushed to match to a higher percentage.

There is almost zero chance that your fixes are going anywhere.

Social Security has a comparable political inertia as the farm subsidies we have discussed. That is, it isn't going anywhere.

 

[Cornbread]

Since we are wandering around with new subjects.

I am conflicted about estate taxes, I can see each side.

While it is not often enforced with vigor, we do recognize that business monopolies are not in the public interest. The oil company that I retired from was a splinter, from the Standard Oil empire of J.D. Rockefeller.

If a business entity can become too large, it makes sense that individual estates can become large enough, to no longer be in the public interest. I have no real idea where that line is.

There are examples of very wealthy people realizing that their heirs do not need or perhaps deserve to inherit all of an estate. Off the top of my head, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bezos' ex wife Mackenzie Scott, have given large amounts of money to charitable causes.

Where do you draw the line!! And there in lies the rub! Charities have been notoriously corrupt. Look at what United Way did 30 years ago. Executives hauling down huge salaries, extravagant headquarters building, corporate jets, etc. Just look at what Wayne LaPierre did for the NRA. If you give to charities, ya gotta do extensive Due Diligence. And maybe they're not extravagant with your dough, they are just incompetent. Ya have ti fight crooks that infiltrate organizations. But how??? Crooks in govt investigate the crooks? LOLOLOL.

 

[Cornbread]

You need to look up the definition of jealousy.

Free markets are the best way to allocate money for the living. It is illogical for the dead to be considered part of a free market. I am not inviting govt into your life, I am inviting them after your death.

The invite is there. You don't get it. Whether I'm alive or dead, doesn't matter. So, you stick the next generation with these crooks. They thank you in advance. And I know what the definition of jealosy is. Go reread your writings and your framework. There are so called conservatives that don't realize their policy suggestions are socialist. What actions do your policy suggestions incentivize???????

 

[BigHornRam]

Fully staffing the IRS is a good start.

IRS has plenty of manpower. Needs more willpower.

IRS whistleblowers claim Justice Department meddled in Hunter Biden investigation

A pair of IRS whistleblowers testified before the House Oversight Committee about alleged meddling in the Justice Department investigation of Hunter Biden. The president's son reached an agreement to plead guilty to two federal misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes and agreed to abide...

www.pbs.org

 

[Alpine01]

There is almost zero chance that your fixes are going anywhere.

Social Security has a comparable political inertia as the farm subsidies we have discussed. That is, it isn't going anywhere.

You are right. A similar phased approach was offered in 1986 (not by me, I heard it while a junior in college) because folks who knew/saw where S-S was heading were trying to head off the problem then. Nearly 40 yrs later, nothing has been done because politicians just want to kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with the fallout. Same argument rings true for the national debt. And what is crushing the US economically? Entitlement spending and servicing the national debt.

 

[BigHornRam]

There is almost zero chance that your fixes are going anywhere.

Social Security has a comparable political inertia as the farm subsidies we have discussed. That is, it isn't going anywhere.

Read this if you want to understand why the farm bill is always loaded with pork.

Chairwoman Stabenow Highlights the Importance of Passing a Bipartisan Farm Bill on the Senate Floor | The United States Senate Committee On Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on...

www.agriculture.senate.gov

 

[VikingsGuy]

The invite is there. You don't get it. Whether I'm alive or dead, doesn't matter. So, you stick the next generation with these crooks. They thank you in advance. And I know what the definition of jealosy is. Go reread your writings and your framework. There are so called conservatives that don't realize their policy suggestions are socialist. What actions do your policy suggestions incentivize???????

Sorry, but I will use other sources for definitions of jealousy, conservatives, and socialist - no disrespect intended. Was the American Revolution just socialist jealousy of England - or was it an observation that the English system impeded the liberty of the colonists through a variety of policies and non-responsive govt that favored an British aristocracy over the rights of the average man. I am saying that under our current system it is better to be a 0.1%er in the US than a Duke in England in the 1700's. This nation was built on toppling the ruling elite that rigged the system - and while I have no taste for actual revolution (or the ham handed populism of the moment) as it is both an unnecessary extreme to fix us and 99% of the time the outcomes are worse that the causal conditions - I am saying it is time to make a few incredibly simple fixes that will create more freedom and opportunity for the 99.9%.

As for actions to incentivize productive engagement - a cohesive society requires sufficient social buy-in by a large portion of the population - we are losing that - and not because we are wasting time talking about bathroom preferences - but because the bottom 50% think they are getting ripped off by a rigged system in favor of the 0.1%. So, my suggestions are to fix some of those, such as the huge tax preference for financiers over working Americans and favor the wealthiest 0.1% over the 99.9% that makes the country that the 0.1% benefit from via all the policy breaks.

 

[406dn]

Sorry, but I will use other sources for definitions of jealousy, conservatives, and socialist - no disrespect intended. Was the American Revolution just socialist jealousy of England - or was it an observation that the English system impeded the liberty of the colonists through a variety of policies and non-responsive govt that favored an British aristocracy over the rights of the average man. I am saying that under our current system it is better to be a 0.1%er in the US than a Duke in England in the 1700's. This nation was built on toppling the ruling elite that rigged the system - and while I have no taste for actual revolution (or the ham handed populism of the moment) as it is both an unnecessary extreme to fix us and 99% of the time the outcomes are worse that the causal conditions - I am saying it is time to make a few incredibly simple fixes that will create more freedom and opportunity for the 99.9%.

As for actions to incentivize productive engagement - a cohesive society requires sufficient social buy-in by a large portion of the population - we are losing that - and not because we are wasting time talking about bathroom preferences - but because the bottom 50% think they are getting ripped off by a rigged system in favor of the 0.1%. So, my suggestions are to fix some of those, such as the huge tax preference for financiers over working Americans and favor the wealthiest 0.1% over the 99.9% that makes the country that the 0.1% with all the policy breaks.

I do enjoy these wandering threads.

IMO, we took a bad turn when we started thinking that supply side economics was the way to solve economic problems. Essentially, it boils down to...if the well off and businesses are prospering, then those towards the bottom will also benefit. So, kind of a double bank shot to help the bottom half.

No one can point to one time where tax cuts spurred enough economic growth, to make the tax cuts pay for themselves. In every case, the top got generous tax relief, and the public treasury took a hit. We have been shoveling the public treasury thru tax policy to the top, since the tax cuts of President Reagan. The last cuts were sold as that they were going to raise the income of the average family by $4000/year. That never happened, at all. The real result, the wealthy got wealthier and the public treasury took a big hit.

Supply side economic theory is one the major reasons we are where we are.

5 Reasons Why Supply-Side Economics Does Not Work

Tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal austerity aren’t necessarily a recipe for economic growth. Here’s why some economists disagree.

www.investopedia.com

 

[MTGomer]

And why does that mean a ranchers kid should get millions of value tax-free and a contractor's kid would have to pay estate taxes on the multimillion dollar construction business?

Also, I grew up with actively farming grandparents, worked on farms in summer, and worked in ag industry for years - so I get how farms work.

Do you really think tax policy should break up multi generational working ranches just because the land has increased in value substantially? These aren’t rich people. You and I and many on this thread make way more in a year than they do.

I could see a tax if the kid decided to sell the ranch when his parents died. But selling the ranch your ancestors homesteaded to the Wilkes brothers so you can afford to hand a pile of cash to the government to waste doesn’t seem right.

 

[brymoore]

The US should eliminate farm subsidies similar to what New Zealand has done to its agriculture industry.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Do you really think tax policy should break up multi generational working ranches just because the land has increased in value substantially? These aren’t rich people. You and I and many on this thread make way more in a year than they do.

I could see a tax if the kid decided to sell the ranch when his parents died. But selling the ranch your ancestors homesteaded to the Wilkes brothers so you can afford to hand a pile of cash to the government to waste doesn’t seem right.

Already said I am ok with some framework to address legit working family farms/ranches and businesses.

 

[BuzzH]

Back to fixing social security ...

My suggestion is phase it out along something like this:
1. Current retirees get the full benefits the USG promised in the first place.
2. Workers age 55-67 (current retirement age at full benefits) get 100% of the promised benefits. THey have been putting into the system their entire working careers.
3. Workers age 45-55 get 80% of the original promised benefits - they haven't contributed as long and have had access to alternate 401K programs for their entire working career, allow them access "catch-up" limits (pre-tax) currently reserved to 50-yr old and up and increase those limits so that they can contribute more
4. Workers age 35-45 get 30-50% of the original promised benefits but up the amount they can contribute pre-tax to 401K's so they can build their retirement accounts
5. Workers under 35 get 0% - yep their screwed from a S-S perspective but they haven't contributed significantly to the ponzi scheme so they aren't losing a great deal anyway. In return they should be allowed to contribute a higher percentage to their 401K (or similar plan thatis pre-tax/tax deferred) and employers should be allowed/encouraged/pushed to match to a higher percentage.

Number 5 will never work for low wage earners. That's the flaw in 401's versus a pension/ss situation.

Pretty easy to just say raise the amount you can contribute, but do those raises in allowable contributions mean anything to people making even $20/hour?

It does not. Try saving for retirement making $20 an hour...good luck with that.

Also, good luck with employers voluntarily contributing higher percentages.

Fantasyland nonsense.

 

[Alpine01]

Number 5 will never work for low wage earners. That's the flaw in 401's versus a pension/ss situation.

Pretty easy to just say raise the amount you can contribute, but do those raises in allowable contributions mean anything to people making even $20/hour?

It does not. Try saving for retirement making $20 an hour...good luck with that.

Also, good luck with employers voluntarily contributing higher percentages.

Fantasyland nonsense.

Ok - what's the alternative? Anyone can do an IRA but that doesn't address the $20/hr worker either. Raising wages on the low end doesn't mean that wages above them also don't adjust upwards as a result. The differential nearly always stays the same. It's not the dollar amount, it's the perceived/accepted value of that job relative to others. So the net cost of living goes up and that new $30/hr wage still doesn't cut it.

 

[BuzzH]

Ok - what's the alternative? Anyone can do an IRA but that doesn't address the $20/hr worker either. Raising wages on the low end doesn't mean that wages above them also don't adjust upwards as a result. The differential nearly always stays the same. It's not the dollar amount, it's the perceived/accepted value of that job relative to others. So the net cost of living goes up and that new $30/hr wage still doesn't cut it.

Social security and pensions.