Save for what, though? Social Security is what we should be saving for. I don't understand why it's a big deal to remove the cap on taxable SS income, and slightly raise the payroll tax temporarily until the Boomers die off and the smaller Gen Xers take their place in retirement?
GOP Going After Medicare/Social Security
- Thread starter Lesh
- Start date
Save for what, though? Social Security is what we should be saving for. I don't understand why it's a big deal to remove the cap on taxable SS income, and slightly raise the payroll tax temporarily until the Boomers die off and the smaller Gen Xers take their place in retirement?
Well, there is an answer; remove the cap on taxable income and slightly raise payroll taxes to cover the large Boomer generation until it dies off. Then we can put the cap back on, or reduce the payroll taxes because Gen X is smaller than the Boomers.
That is the conclusion of the link from the liberal Center on Budget Policy Priorities posted by Jack(?). 90% is overly optimistic since none of the studies make such a projection.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
You don't seem the have the same penchant for human sacrifice many americans do.
Yes, I agree that benefits should be capped for the wealthy, but that's just one part of a multi-faceted plan. The other parts include removing the cap and slightly raising payroll taxes. Those are just temporary, though, and can be reversed once the Boomers start dying off en masse.
So again, that plan didn't include a slight increase to payroll taxes...nor did it cap benefits for the wealthy, correct? So it's just focusing on removing the cap and expanding benefits and doing so could net out as much as 90% of the cover of the shortfall. So if you slightly raised the payroll taxes by 1-2%, you'd be making up that 10% gap with probably enough to rebuild the Trust. And we can do this while the largest generation of retirees is collecting benefits. Again, the solutions are pretty simple and would cause virtually no pain to anyone.
If me paying 1-2% more in payroll taxes means my elderly relative doesn't have to eat cat food, I consider that a sacrifice worth making.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Many do not. The industrial ruling class has done a very nice job of splintering society into quibbling factions, much easier to rule.
Save to be able to cover benefits when the surplus runs out about 2037. Reducing spending is always better than taking money out of the economy through taxes. Virtually eliminating federal income taxes for the bottom 50% has given them more consumer spending--increasing their payroll taxes destroys some of that benefit.
I think it's a generational thing, mostly. I think the Boomer generation is a generation of entitled, babied, coddled folks who have no sense of loyalty or duty to the country, only to themselves. They're called the "Me generation" for a reason. Unfortunately, you can't teach a selfish person empathy.
I think generalizations are stupid and lazy.
But if you lift the cap on taxable income, slightly raise payroll taxes, and cap benefits for the wealthy, you extend that surplus and quite possibly add to it.
Reducing spending takes money out of the economy. Directly. We just went through this during Obama with austerity. Not once did austerity close a budget gap or lead to increased consumer spending.
NOT.
ONCE.
So if it didn't work back in 2010-11, and the justifications for imposing it on us were all fraudulent (Rogoff/Reinhart), why do you think it's a viable solution to anything? Did you not learn anything from our past dalliance with austerity? It was only 7-8 years ago...
If we eliminated unnecessary benefits we wouldn't have to reduce payments to senior retirees. Rather than paying 1-2% more in payroll taxes use that money to buy some food for your elderly relatives.
No it hasn't. Not at all.
Since the age of tax cuts began in 1980, the personal savings rate has plummeted and the household debt as a percentage of GDP has skyrocketed. That's solely, 100% because of tax cuts. Cutting taxes for the poor hasn't produced any growth of note, and it serves the real function of manufacturing budget deficits to then use as an excuse to attack the spending they're ideologically opposed to, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through legislation. So they do the next best thing; deliberately wreck the budget, then cry chicken little over the deficit their budgets now have thanks to the tax cuts.
Cutting taxes does nothing other than increase deficits. They don't create jobs. They don't create growth. All they create are deficits and debt.
They're fiscal terrorism, and they're not justified by any empirical evidence that suggests they deliver on any of the promises made of them.
In this case, the generalization is accurate. Boomers are selfish. They selfishly ruined our nation's finances with their tax cut schemes, they selfishly destroyed the planet with their waste, they selfishly bought a materialistic dream for themselves, they selfishly elected a buffoon for President, and they don't care what happens to anyone after they die.
"He who dies with the most toys wins" is one of the mantras of the Boomer generation.
We shouldn't reduce payments at all. We should be expanding benefits.
Increased taxes also takes money out of the economy directly without losing some of that consumer spending to government.
During the Obama years the deficit was reduced from over $1 trillion to $400 billion. And consumer spending increased steadily to a record high.
I think most of this was just the economy recovering from the recession rather than specific policies.
No, it doesn’t apply to all Boomers, that is why generalizations are stupid and lazy. I didn’t vote for this buffoon, I didn’t support the tax cuts, I worked hard for the things I have achieved, in the process helped others achieve their goals. Most people have no cares after they die, I’d be shocked to find a dead person with cares. The majority of my Boomer friends are like me, this is why generalizations are stupid and lazy.
No, because government spending is done in the same economy as consumer spending. So when a government taxes you, it's spending that money in the economy elsewhere.
That's why when Clinton raised taxes in 1993, he saw the largest economic expansion in a generation, and when Bush the Dumber cut taxes in 2001, we saw the worst economic collapse in a generation.
Yeah, you know why?
Because he let the Bush Tax Cuts expire on the 1% at the end of 2012. REMEMBER?????