Now that we Amis have a nice tax cut, how to reduce spending to cover it?

[JohnT]

A continuing Presidential Commission (started, iirc, in 1993) report isn't good enough for you? Do you want the 1997 version which says the exact same thing, but is under a President that you like?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Kid: "Right, there is a surplus which is used for other govt obligations."

No, I meant any of the money. If Congress enacted a law tomorrow that stopped all SS checks but kept the taxes, there's not a single thing anyone can do about it.

Let me quote the USSC again: "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."

And they aren't, despite what you might hear of a "trust fund."

No one here believes that benefits could even be cut, but you believe that they could be eliminated all together

[JohnT]

Wrong. No one here believes that they can be cut today. Otoh, when looking at fiscal collapse in 2032 (or whenever) people's attitudes will be quite different.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
Wrong. No one here believes that they can be cut today. Otoh, when looking at fiscal collapse in 2032 (or whenever) people's attitudes will be quite different.

And this is when the contributers/beneficiaries ratio is to be 2:1. Many of the retirees will have already exausted their savings, assuming times will be so hard, and you think they are going to support an elimination of their benefits?

[JohnT]

They won't have a choice, Kid. That's the nice thing about the Social Security problem - it will be solved, one way or another.

And what about the other side of the ratio - do you think they want to suffer 50%+ tax rates to pay for 1/3 of America to sit on their duffs?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT
They won't have a choice, Kid. That's the nice thing about the Social Security problem - it will be solved, one way or another.

Just because the fund goes broke doesn't mean that benefit payments will stop.

Originally posted by JohnT
And what about the other side of the ratio - do you think they want to suffer 50%+ tax rates to pay for 1/3 of America to sit on their duffs?

Of course not, but they want their SS too, and they won't want their parents to move in with them.

[JohnT]

"Just becuase the fund goes broke doesn't meant that benefit payments will stop."



Of course, we could just expand the national debt to $54 trillion. That'd be nice.

[Kidlicious]

Maybe the economy will grow at 10% and we won't have to make these hard choices.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I thought you were in Fresno, not over in Humboldt County.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why should that be my problem?

It's sort of an implied obligation. Obviously the crown can cancel those at will, but it's often easier to pay off the rabble than it is to deal with rebellion.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's sort of an implied obligation. Obviously the crown can cancel those at will, but it's often easier to pay off the rabble than it is to deal with rebellion.

The rabble has a choice to make. They can either deal with a little pain now or watch in horror as thier pig trough collapse when the shell games can no longer keep the Ponzi scheme solvent.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious

It's not smart at all. A bunch of poor people would have to let their parents live with them. I for one will be outraged.

Well, if people piss their way through their lives, with the attitude that "I done spent my money on two packs of Marlboros a day, bottles of Jim Beam and lotto tickets, and I didn't do **** about my retirement, so now the government owes me," you can take a fair guess how sympathetic I am to that argument.

People who have no choices - real disabilities, etc., are in a different category, and should be helped, but that's not what we're talking about here, we're talking about the mass of average retirees who've been able to work all their lives.

It's smart to realize that the present system is fiscally and mathematically unsound, and that phasing out that system and relying on your own personal retirement planning (with former SS taxes legally mandated to go into those private retirement plans), with very limited allowable investments, will vastly improve the funds you have available at retirement. Coupled with the renewed notion of personal responsibility, you can add some real government and corporate responsibility, in terms of reforming holes in present pension rules, so that employee pensions can't be liquidated for creditor's benefits in bankruptcies, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The rabble has a choice to make. They can either deal with a little pain now or watch in horror as thier pig trough collapse when the shell games can no longer keep the Ponzi scheme solvent.

It's a question of which rabble. Those that are close to retirement age and who've been forced to pay a ton of cash into the corrupt system have little or no time to adapt.

The 18-35 or so year olds have all the time in the world to adapt, so a phase out should take into consideration how much each person has paid in and for how long.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Well, if people piss their way through their lives, with the attitude that "I done spent my money on two packs of Marlboros a day, bottles of Jim Beam and lotto tickets, and I didn't do **** about my retirement, so now the government owes me," you can take a fair guess how sympathetic I am to that argument.

You might be suprized to know how many hardworking thrifty people there are who don't have enough savings to retire with when they get to be that age.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
It's smart to realize that the present system is fiscally and mathematically unsound, and that phasing out that system and relying on your own personal retirement planning (with former SS taxes legally mandated to go into those private retirement plans), with very limited allowable investments, will vastly improve the funds you have available at retirement. Coupled with the renewed notion of personal responsibility, you can add some real government and corporate responsibility, in terms of reforming holes in present pension rules, so that employee pensions can't be liquidated for creditor's benefits in bankruptcies, etc.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the transition costs will be funded in such times of crisis.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The 18-35 or so year olds have all the time in the world to adapt, so a phase out should take into consideration how much each person has paid in and for how long.

That depends on your income. I'll be 35 this year and I'll be damned if I'm going to let my SS go.