The George Bush Lock Box Thread - Page 4

lookout123 · 01-13-2005, 01:42 PM

are you saying that if there isn't enough money to pay for SS then we should increase the tax for SS?

Happy Monkey · 01-13-2005, 01:58 PM

Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant.

lookout123 · 01-13-2005, 02:27 PM

if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better.

Happy Monkey · 01-13-2005, 02:58 PM

There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring.

lookout123 · 01-13-2005, 03:08 PM

ok, so you are saying that if John Q makes above $X00,000 annual, he will start receiving a smaller paycheck. and if the SS system is still around he will get more money back at retirement. money that he could have invested to much more effectively himself.

Happy Monkey · 01-13-2005, 04:12 PM

On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.

That is what Social Security is all about. Not everyone ends up better off individually than they theoretically could have, but everyone gets a no-risk guaranteed benefit, and society benefits.

lookout123 · 01-13-2005, 04:30 PM

if i'm the guy that sees my taxes go up so that someone who isn't responsible enough to handle his own retirement plan can have more money, i'm not real happy about it. i say that as a person who is watching my parents work through their retirement because his pension and SS don't go as far as he thought it would.

it wouldn't be right to tax high wage earners more to subsidize my father's retirement. if anyone is going to subsidize him, it should be his own family - me.

Happy Monkey · 01-13-2005, 04:39 PM

You may not like the fundamental theory of social security, but that's what it is. Not everyone has someone to fall back on in times of trouble.

lookout123 · 01-13-2005, 05:01 PM

we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.

Happy Monkey · 01-13-2005, 05:15 PM

So what? If you begrudge the difference between the SS benefit and the amount you might have otherwise made, would you feel better if wealthy people got nothing back?

That would be another way to deal with the (eventual) SS deficit, but I don't think you'd be too happy with that one either.

xoxoxoBruce · 01-13-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many.

It's called entitlement, a promise from Uncle sam to pay me in return for the years I've paid him. It didn't matter if I liked the plan or not, I wasn't allowed to opt out, so as far as I'm concerned, neither is he.

Griff · 01-14-2005, 05:42 AM

This is an ironic highjacking.

russotto · 01-14-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market.

If you're under 50, and you believe that, I have this nice bridge to sell you...

Happy Monkey · 01-14-2005, 10:25 AM

The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers.

lookout123 · 01-14-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

if the government is willing

if the government is willing to do what? tax me more to take care of people who didn't plan for their own futures? i'm sure they are willing to do that.

Bruce - i'm not talking about cutting benefits to people already in the system and dependent on the income, i'm talking about telling those that are just starting out to take care of themselves because the handouts are going to stop. it would be unfair to stop the benefits of those who have lived their whole lives counting on it, but it would be imprudent to raise future generations to be equally dependent on it.

01-13-2005, 01:42 PM	#46
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	are you saying that if there isn't enough money to pay for SS then we should increase the tax for SS? __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-13-2005, 01:58 PM	#47
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Of course. It is currently a regressive tax, because we can afford to make it so. It can start to approach a flat tax, if needed. The majority of taxpayers would see no difference, as the rate would remain constant. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-13-2005, 02:27 PM	#48
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	if you raise a tax, someone will see the difference. break down the details on how you see this working, and why it would be better. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-13-2005, 02:58 PM	#49
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	There are no extra details compared to the current system. One number gets raised in the formula. People who are above the current maximum will pay the tax on the difference, and receive the resulting increase in benefits after retiring. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-13-2005, 03:08 PM	#50
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	ok, so you are saying that if John Q makes above $X00,000 annual, he will start receiving a smaller paycheck. and if the SS system is still around he will get more money back at retirement. money that he could have invested to much more effectively himself. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-13-2005, 04:12 PM	#51
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	On the other hand, the SS system WILL still be around, for EVERYONE, not just john Q. It will provide a guaranteed amount, based on the formula, for EVERYONE, not just the people who know the market. That is what Social Security is all about. Not everyone ends up better off individually than they theoretically could have, but everyone gets a no-risk guaranteed benefit, and society benefits. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-13-2005, 04:30 PM	#52
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	if i'm the guy that sees my taxes go up so that someone who isn't responsible enough to handle his own retirement plan can have more money, i'm not real happy about it. i say that as a person who is watching my parents work through their retirement because his pension and SS don't go as far as he thought it would. it wouldn't be right to tax high wage earners more to subsidize my father's retirement. if anyone is going to subsidize him, it should be his own family - me. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-13-2005, 04:39 PM	#53
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	You may not like the fundamental theory of social security, but that's what it is. Not everyone has someone to fall back on in times of trouble. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-13-2005, 05:01 PM	#54
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	we're not talking about "hard times" programs here. we're talking about an expected cash payout for everyone when they reach a certain age. social security has become akin to a pension in the eyes of many. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

01-13-2005, 05:15 PM	#55
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	So what? If you begrudge the difference between the SS benefit and the amount you might have otherwise made, would you feel better if wealthy people got nothing back? That would be another way to deal with the (eventual) SS deficit, but I don't think you'd be too happy with that one either. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

01-14-2005, 05:42 AM	#57
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	This is an ironic highjacking. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

01-14-2005, 10:25 AM	#59
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The current system, with no changes, will go down to 80% of scheduled (not current, scheduled are higher than current) benefits at worst, several decades from now. That's not a crisis, and it is easy to make up that difference, if the government is willing. And it will be willing when the AARP is all Baby Boomers. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)