Quote :

"so what you're saying is hard-working folks have been getting fucked by social "security" since jump street?"

No, what I illustrated was the the original intent of SS was to provide security for the working poor and middle class when could no longer work. It has now morphed into a de facto government retirement program. Not necessarily bad, but beyond what was envisioned.

Simply raising the retirement age by 2 years would eliminate the anticipated SS shortfall twenty years from now.

8/30/2012 1:26:20 PM

Quote :

"eyedrb: ^i think a better solution is for our generation to put their contributions in a private account they control. Pay for current retirees with the employers contribution and deficit spending. Might be the easiest way to go, other than screwing our generation or savers completly."

Would you agree to forcing people to put their contributions in a private account?

And could we arrange a government guarantee of these accounts?

I just don't want a bunch of idiots not saving properly and ending up on a lot of government help at their end of their lives anyway. And I also don't want wealthy people destroying the economy again and battering everyone's retirement funds.

8/30/2012 2:43:57 PM

Quote :

"Then why are you arguing for a "flat rate"? A flat rate would make the rich pay more than the poor based on their income. Your statements are hard to take seriously when you contradict yourself on basic concepts."

and what exactly is contradictory?

of course the rich would end up paying more.

i'm arguing everyone should pay a flat percentage of their income, not jump to owing the government a larger percentage based on some arbitrary earnings threshold.

i really shouldn't have to explain this.

8/30/2012 2:49:40 PM

^^I don't know what eyedrb would say, but I would say no for several reasons.

If you force people to put money into private accounts I can assure you that there will be shitloads of crony capitalism and government manipulation of those investments. There will be lists of "approved" accounts and funds which will be based not on security or ROR, but on who bribes congress the best or who funds the elections the most. Look at how badly mismanaged government pensions are, they become venture capital machines for government pet projects or as a large monetary club for social engineering.

Secondly, I think you would be better off telling employers that the current % that they pay towards an employees SS must be put into a pension or other retirement vehicle, whether that's an employee directed 401(k), a brokerage account or something similar. That guarantees investment without forcing the individual to sacrifice any current pay.

At the point when SS is disbanded, if you don't save for retirement then tough shit.

8/30/2012 2:56:08 PM

Quote :

"i'm just saying, if a mom has to work two jobs to feed her kids, i don't think she should have to pay as much as a millionaire who has enough money to raise a family and buy a yacht and a vacation home (that's only an example)"

and why not? you can make extreme examples all you want, but i have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why one person should pay a larger percentage of their income solely based on the amount they make.

and don't worry, even by paying a flat tax rate, that evil millionaire with a beach house and yacht would STILL be paying way more in taxes in a year than that same struggling mother would pay in her whole life.

of course, if you ask baracko, he'll tell you his justification for disproportionate taxation: "because it's NEIGHBORLY!"

[Edited on August 30, 2012 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2012 3:04:27 PM

Quote :

"i have yet to hear a compelling reason as to why one person should pay a larger percentage of their income solely based on the amount they make"

Well, here are seven from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

Quote :

"For implementation The higher one's income, the greater the fraction of it that tends to consist of economic rent rather than rewards for any commensurate contribution to production. By definition, economic rent is a factor payment exceeding that required to place a factor in its most productive use, so it can be taxed away entirely without impairing wealth production. Consequently, in the absence of taxes specifically levied on economic rent, a steeply progressive tax on the highest incomes can be expected to fall almost exclusively on economic rent, minimizing the excess burden of such taxation. In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Thus, due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, free market democracies should support progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.[citation needed] In response to the concern that progressive taxation creates an unfair psychological burden on the wealthy; if the utility gained from income exhibits diminishing marginal returns, as many psychologists assert (see Weber-Fechner law), then for the tax burden to be shared in a utilitarian way the tax-bill must increase non-linearly with income. As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tends to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes[23] People with higher income tend to have a higher percentage of that in discretionary income, and can thus afford a greater tax burden (this is the “vertical equity” argument), e.g., a person earning exactly enough money to pay for food and housing cannot afford to pay any taxes without its causing material damage, while someone earning twice as much can afford to pay up to half their income in taxes. Some believe that the wealthy have a disproportionately greater interest in maintaining societal goods typically supported by taxation such as security of property rights, defense and infrastructure, as they have much more to lose if these fail than do the poor. Public investments in defense and foreign aid often support assets abroad whose expropriation is a far greater risk than is the risk involving domestic investments. As long as after-tax income is a strictly increasing function of gross income, there is a monetary incentive to increase compensation received. Indeed, for any particular income goal, the higher the tax rate, the more compensation one must receive to reach that income goal. For this reason, progressive income tax may increase the incentive to produce among the largest producers (if higher production is truly associated with higher compensation)."

8/30/2012 3:18:22 PM

Quote :

"that evil millionaire"

i never said anything about evil, why'd you say that?

Quote :

"if you ask baracko"

oh, name calling. credibility out the window.

8/30/2012 3:26:44 PM

since you took the time to do some really hard-hitting wikipedia research, why not copy the rest of the section you quoted?

Quote :

"Against implementation Progressive taxation creates work disincentives. Depending on tax rate, the incentive to stay in a lower tax bracket may be higher than one to move in to a higher bracket. Regardless of higher nominal tax rates, revenues do not tend to increase with progressive taxation [/b](see Hauser's law).[b] Progressive taxation violates the principle of equality under the law.[26] Progressive taxes lower savings rates. High-earners have a lower average propensity to consume, so shifting the tax-burden away from them will increase the aggregate savings rate, which should increase steady state growth (if the savings rate is initially below the Golden Rule savings rate). Progressive taxation shifts the total economic production of society away from capital investments (tools, infrastructure, training, research) and toward present consumption goods. This could happen because high-income earners tend to pay for capital goods (through investment activities) and low-income earners tend to purchase consumables. Smithian and neo-classical growth theory says that spending more on consumption goods and less on capital goods will slow the rise of the standard of living, and possibly even reduce it since capital goods increase future production possibilities. Increase in tax loopholes such as income splitting technique. This creates an incentive for business owners to split their business into smaller, less efficient ones for a lower tax bracket. It also encourages production from less efficient smaller businesses than larger ones. Justice in representation: economic equity is sometimes used to argue against progressive taxation, on the grounds of representation being out-of-proportion to taxation: While the top 5% in income in most countries pay over half the taxes, they have only 5% of the voting weight. This argument can be reversed into the plutocratic case that if tax is to be progressive it should be accompanied by greater say in elections for those who contribute most. Policymakers are argued to be under a pressure from lower and middle income voters to limit higher incomes by the means of progressive taxation. A few economists argue against inequity aversion: "If policy makers' primary goal is … economic prosperity for all, they should avoid focusing on the politics of envy." "

Quote :

"Hauser's law is the proposition that, in the United States, federal tax revenues since World War II have always been approximately equal to 19.5% of GDP, regardless of wide fluctuations in the marginal tax rate.[1] Historically, since the end of World War II, federal tax receipts as a percentage of gross domestic product averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9% between 1946 - 2007.[2]"

I don't care how poor you are...everyone should at least pay SOMETHING before you try to accuse the rich of not paying their share. 49% of the country not paying income tax while simultaneously raising hell over the tax rates of the rich is ridiculous...not to mention pathetic.

[Edited on August 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2012 3:31:30 PM

^ Because you said you've never heard of a reason. So I took that as an opportunity to spend 10 seconds to educate you since you hadn't done it yourself.

8/30/2012 3:33:02 PM

^i said a compelling reason. how many seconds will it take to educate you as to what that word means?

Quote :

"i never said anything about evil, why'd you say that?"

that was less an affront to you, and more an affront to the current culture of demonizing the rich and successful in this country. i'm aware not everybody does that, though.

Quote :

"oh, name calling. credibility out the window."

if that's the case, yours has been long gone, you hack.

8/30/2012 3:42:57 PM

i'm 24 and i've been paying SS taxes since i was 16

i would gladly forfeit all that i've paid in if they'd just let me opt out (without becoming Amish)

if i get old and can't afford healthcare, then just let me die.

Quote :

"No, what I illustrated was the the original intent of SS was to provide security for the working poor and middle class when could no longer work. It has now morphed into a de facto government retirement program. Not necessarily bad, but beyond what was envisioned."

i'm not sure i follow you. you're saying that back in the day the govt started a program that takes your money and promises to give it back to you when you reach a certain age, which statistics show you'll likely never reach anyway and this somehow provided "security"?



[Edited on August 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM. Reason : i honestly don't understand, so please explain further]

8/30/2012 4:03:02 PM

Back in the day, people could work until they died, because they died earlier. Now, people can continue living but are, fair to say, unable to work (unable to be productive) for whatever reason. So now they can live on for 30 years off of Medicare and SS until they die at 95.

8/30/2012 7:19:35 PM

yeah, i understand the difference between back then and now, but he seemed to be defending SS as it was originally designed. when i said that it fucked folks over that way too, he said i was wrong. i do not understand.

8/30/2012 8:40:30 PM

Well, I think people should break down "Social Security." Anything you don't understand about the intent of the program can be gleaned simply from the name of the program.

8/30/2012 8:54:49 PM

Quote :

"i'm 2427 and i've been paying SS taxes since i was 16 i would gladly forfeit all that i've paid in if they'd just let me opt out"

8/30/2012 9:07:18 PM

If you could opt out, that would defeat the purpose. The whole point is that you are not allowed to opt out. The government has a gun to your head, and the people running it have no problem taking the money it removes from your paycheck and spending on unrelated shit.

8/30/2012 10:37:29 PM

Quote :

"The middle class pay a waaay larger fraction of their income into the SS system, so when we're talking about the tax burden of different people, the current scheme is smoke and mirrors."

They also receive a waaaaay smaller fraction of their post-retirement income from SS.

Quote :

"49% of the country not paying income tax while simultaneously raising hell over the tax rates of the rich is ridiculous...not to mention pathetic."

Exactly.

8/30/2012 11:29:09 PM

I think the thing that most people argue is that the widening wealth gap and inequality is hurting the majority of Americans. For the last 30 years wealth has been accumulating at the top. If the top earners weren't taking home so much of the money and seemingly playing on a different playing field, then sure, I think that argument would be viable. But since things are moving in the wrong direction, a progressive tax system is one way to balance the inequality. Pretty much every other developed country in the world has settled on this policy, but we can't do that here cuz we're Merica.

8/30/2012 11:43:16 PM

Quote :

"if i get old and can't afford healthcare, then just let me die."

hahaha

bullshit

8/31/2012 1:50:59 AM

1) If you're on a deserted island and you don't make an effort to feed yourself, should you die?

2) If you're on a populated island and society makes an effort to make food for themselves while you don't make an effort to feed/produce yourself, should you die?

3) If you're on a populated island and society makes an effort to make food for themselves while make an effort to feed yourself BUT CAN'T for whatever reason, should you die? Should society help you?





[Edited on August 31, 2012 at 3:31 AM. Reason : 3/4 questions]

8/31/2012 3:25:58 AM

Quote :

"and what exactly is contradictory?"

Well we agree that even under a flat tax rate on income that the rich would pay more based on their larger income correct? That is contradictory to this quote from you in the same post:

Quote :

"is zero justification for making one person pay more than another solely based on their income"

8/31/2012 10:23:22 AM

Quote :

" But since things are moving in the wrong direction, a progressive tax system is one way to balance the inequality. Pretty much every other developed country in the world has settled on this policy, but we can't do that here cuz we're Merica."

The problem isn't that our tax system isn't generally progressive enough. It's that loopholes and the structure of it (and how the truly wealthy generally derive their income) cause it to effectively become sharply regressive at the very top. Raising marginal tax rates on "the rich" will just hardcore fuck the upper middle class--the whole issue is that the real upper crust isn't really required to pay their marginal tax rate on most of their income.

(I.e.; the "Buffett Rule" fundamentally misses the whole point)

8/31/2012 2:51:24 PM

The easy solution for that would be to raise capital gains tax.

8/31/2012 4:33:59 PM

Here is some interesting reading for you flat tax supporters.

If you start counting up the different taxes that we pay, most of which are much more regressive when compared with the federal income tax, then we already have pretty close to an overall flat tax system:

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php




So when when you argue that we need a flat federal income tax, you are also arguing for a regressive overall tax system, which I just don't think is defendable.

[Edited on August 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM. Reason : friendlier wording]

8/31/2012 5:33:06 PM

Quote :

"The easy solution for that would be to raise capital gains tax."

Sometimes, and this is one of those times, the simplest solution is a really bad one.

You could defend raising the capital gains tax on say, any amount over the first $million or something, but if your solution is just to raise capital gains taxes you are going to cripple investment and kill people who are retired and about to retire.

8/31/2012 7:13:51 PM

Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.

8/31/2012 8:03:33 PM

The real issue is how you tax capital gains. There was an article on Huffington Post recently recommending a minimum capital gains tax of 30% or something.

I guess people assume that you either treat it as a static tax or treat it as income so it falls under a progressive tax. The high static tax idea of 30+% is a horrible idea especially when looking at someone paying that and they don't make that high earnings. Regular Joe's will likely stop investing as much IMO.

8/31/2012 8:46:40 PM

The real issue is how you tax capital gains. There was an article on Huffington Post recently recommending a minimum capital gains tax of 30% or something.

I guess people assume that you either treat it as a static tax (think 3 brackets?) or treat it as income so it falls under a progressive tax. The high static tax idea of 30+% is a horrible idea especially when looking at someone paying that and they don't make that high earnings. Regular Joe's will likely stop investing as much IMO. I might have misread the article, maybe the 30% was the highest earnings bracket.

Rather than treating it as 100% income tax, you can treat a % of it as an income tax like Canada does:

Quote :

"Currently 50.00% of realized capital gains are taxed in Canada at an individual's tax rate"

[Edited on August 31, 2012 at 8:50 PM. Reason : g]

8/31/2012 8:48:38 PM

I would support a progressive capital gains tax where people who make less than $500,000 pay no tax at all. $500,000 to $5m pay 15%. I'm not knowledgeable enough about upper income levels to go all the way up, but if you're like David Koch and you make $200m from capital gains every year, I would have absolutely no problem taxing that at like 50%. This might make the economy grow less quickly, but it would also increase long-term stability greatly because people would be more likely to hold onto their stocks for a period of time instead of having a bunch of Gordon Gekkos running around daytrading economically critical corporations up and down like they're fucking odds on the Super Bowl or something.

9/1/2012 12:06:36 AM

Wait, you realize that only holdings kept for a year or longer get the 15% rate, right?

Day-trading earnings are taxed at your marginal rate.

[Edited on September 1, 2012 at 2:21 AM. Reason : Also, short-term trading bolsters liquidity]

[Edited on September 1, 2012 at 2:32 AM. Reason : ]

9/1/2012 2:20:50 AM