NationStates Jolt Archive

what is it.. ?

My suggestion would be to raise the cap for payroll taxes. As it stands we only tax the first $90k of income. If we raised that to something more reasonable, we'd have an influx of new money and might be able to pull SS out of the red. Though there's no rush-the system won't have to cut benefits until 2042 under the current predictions (and even then they'd be cut to about 70% of what they are now, so not a tremendous loss).

its true that benifits wont have to be cut until 2042, however by that time the baby boomers will already be in retirement and will be far more difficult to fix the problem. We are already at the point at which either taxes are going to be raised or benifits are going to be cut as an inevitablity...

and you say a 30% cut in benifits is nothing so big.. you tell that to the retiree's who depend on SS for their survival.. and that its no big deal.. The sad reality is SS is extremely important for most retiree's who can't aford a cut in benifits of that magnitude.

and as was stated before simply raising the SS cap wont fix the inevitable problem SS faces, because the problem is demographic in nature. after 2042 the problem of SS being in the red dosn't simply plateau but exponentially grows every year.

It seems to me the Democrats have become so good at being an opposition party, they are unable to come up with any ideas at all.

Well, the 30% assumes we do nothing about the problem. I agree it's a substantial cut, but I bet it's better than having your savings account wiped out in a market fluctuation.

The problem is demographic in nature, but you have to remember that after the boomers retire the rate of new retirees entering the system will slow down, and the worker:retiree ratio will stabilize. So really, we just need to get past that crisis point in mid-century. Then the demographics should stabilize and one plan will work for a long time.

Oh, and with regards to being an opposition party and not coming up with anything new...opposing the Republicans' radical agenda is more than enough work to keep the Dems occupied-they're too busy trying to maintain sanity in the federal government to come up with many new programs! ;)

There isn't one.

Well we did prpose one in 2000, but people decided they would rather not wait and wanted their money so they could spend it imediately.

what is it.. ?
The SS are old news, we already got rid of Hitler and his minions a while ago.

Oh wait, you didn't mean that sort of SS, did you?

The SS are old news, we already got rid of Hitler and his minions a while ago.

Oh wait, you didn't mean that sort of SS, did you?
Damn, beat me to it

... opposing the Republicans' radical agenda is more than enough work to keep the Dems occupied-they're too busy trying to maintain sanity in the federal government to come up with many new programs! ;)

What "racial agenda?"

And the idea of Teddy Kennedy "trying to maintain sanity" would be hysterically laughable if it weren't so sad. :(

Well, the 30% assumes we do nothing about the problem. I agree it's a substantial cut, but I bet it's better than having your savings account wiped out in a market fluctuation.

The problem is demographic in nature, but you have to remember that after the boomers retire the rate of new retirees entering the system will slow down, and the worker:retiree ratio will stabilize. So really, we just need to get past that crisis point in mid-century. Then the demographics should stabilize and one plan will work for a long time.

Oh, and with regards to being an opposition party and not coming up with anything new...opposing the Republicans' radical agenda is more than enough work to keep the Dems occupied-they're too busy trying to maintain sanity in the federal government to come up with many new programs! ;)

the moneys but aside are protected by diversified mutual funds and have other governmental protections as BUSH identified in his state of the union. THe privitzation program is essentially a 401k plan.. and you dont see 401k plans as destructive as democrats are making this privitzation plan out to be

after 2042 the problem of SS being in the red dosn't simply plateau but exponentially grows every year.

Wouldn't it grow logistically (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LogisticEquation.html) instead of exponentially?

The problem is demographic in nature, but you have to remember that after the boomers retire the rate of new retirees entering the system will slow down, and the worker:retiree ratio will stabilize. So really, we just need to get past that crisis point in mid-century. Then the demographics should stabilize and one plan will work for a long time.


that is providing that SS is able to survive the mid century.. After it exhausts the surpluses it enjoys now in government treasury bonds, every year it will be running deficit larger then the previous.. a 30% loss of benifits is only the beginning... and this amount of loss in benifits is more then most can handle.. This is as well in the face of the fact that life expectancies grow as the years go on.. in 30 years we can expect people to live well into their 100's more often then today.. and this is just as babyboomers are entering retirement..

OK i could post alot of arguments here, instead i'll just make 1 here :

Why is it G W Bush has no money for SS but he is spending a furtune on an anti-missile shield that doesnt even has a 50% chance of hitting the target, and the greatest threat to us security isnt a million $ Nuclear missile, but a terrorist with a backpack full of explosives (that could look like anyone btw) ?

It seems to me the Democrats have become so good at being an opposition party, they are unable to come up with any ideas at all.
Actually the Democrats are really bad at beng an opposition party.

There isn't one.
You like this provatisation of SS yeah? I don't really care one way or another, but I'm really curious about how you ended up to the left of the Democrats on the political compass!

Wouldn't it grow logistically (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LogisticEquation.html) instead of exponentially?

isn't that equation for population growth.. but the propulation growth is only the base... its the dollars and cents which will make the problem exponential

bring back the actual SS. get them to kill off a few million old people each year (decided by random - like a lottery!), and your SS problem is solved.


Although then youll have a new, different, SS problem

What "racial agenda?"

And the idea of Teddy Kennedy "trying to maintain sanity" would be hysterically laughable if it weren't so sad. :(
Radical. Not racial. Radical. As in invading Iran (how they'll get troops I have no idea...), using the Constitution both as an instrument of bigotry and a political tool (see "marriage amendment"), trashing the environment ("Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" as opposed to actual clear skies or healthy forests)...need I continue?

And yes, Teddy is absolutely nuts...but we love him anyway. Kinda like the Reps love Santorum or Trent Lott. ;)

isn't that equation for population growth.. but the propulation growth is only the base... its the dollars and cents which will make the problem exponential

The dollars and cents have to be based on the ratio of people of working age minus unemployment to the number of retired people. Well, something like that. I won't pretend to know the math. I just figured that it'd be directly linked to the population growth of the country.

the moneys but aside are protected by diversified mutual funds and have other governmental protections as BUSH identified in his state of the union. THe privitzation program is essentially a 401k plan.. and you dont see 401k plans as destructive as democrats are making this privitzation plan out to be
unless you used to work for ENRON

Radical. Not racial. Radical. As in invading Iran (how they'll get troops I have no idea...), using the Constitution both as an instrument of bigotry and a political tool (see "marriage amendment"), trashing the environment ("Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" as opposed to actual clear skies or healthy forests)...need I continue?

And yes, Teddy is absolutely nuts...but we love him anyway. Kinda like the Reps love Santorum or Trent Lott. ;)

how will they get troops.. well if democrats have their way seeing how they are the ones calling for one now .. well have a draft.. funny they were always saying it was BUSH with the secrete plan for a draft.. im actually starting to belive Kerry was the one who would have instituted a draft

unless you used to work for ENRON

seeing how those scandles came about from degreluations during Clintons administration...

besides, these days people are more informed and 401k plans are now REQUIRED to be more diversified then the days in which your entire 401k plan was invested in one company... so yes.. 401k plans are far more stable and provide far greater return on your investment then bond interest rates..

how will they get troops.. well if democrats have their way seeing how they are the ones calling for one now .. well have a draft.. funny they were always saying it was BUSH with the secrete plan for a draft.. im actually starting to belive Kerry was the one who would have instituted a draft
Ultimately, though, the responsibility for a draft lies on whoever gets us into a situation where we need more troops than we have. That would be Bush, if he invades Iran.
Either way, I'll just go home to Canada if I get drafted (those dirty bastards decided in the 80s that it was OK to draft permanent residents).

how will they get troops.. well if democrats have their way seeing how they are the ones calling for one now .. well have a draft.. funny they were always saying it was BUSH with the secrete plan for a draft.. im actually starting to belive Kerry was the one who would have instituted a draft
That was just a tactic to make people think about how war means sacrifice. So far all we have sacrifised are a few constitutional freedoms to the patriot act.

My suggestion would be to raise the cap for payroll taxes. As it stands we only tax the first $90k of income. If we raised that to something more reasonable, we'd have an influx of new money

No, you won't! You think I'm an idiot, don't you?! You naively think that I'll continue to receive my income over $90K in SS-taxable form and won't even think about converting it into some other non-taxable form?! In this case I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Look, the simple fact is that the US economy is already taxed to the max (ever heard of Laffer Curve?) - it is virtually impossible to collect any more taxes unless the economy grows. So stop daydreaming and deal with it, i.e. cut spending.

P.S. Supply-side really works - I personally started working more and earning more after the Bush tax cut. And if you succeed in raising my taxes, I'll just work less again, so you won't actually get any more money. But the economy will shrink (and I'll have more vacations).

Well, I got screwed royally by the Bush Tax Cut. The dollar's weak due to our prodigious and crippling deficit, my generation is going to have to either jack taxes waaay up or slash necessary programs to repair Bush's damage...and I didn't make any appreciable amount from the tax cut.

Well, I got screwed royally by the Bush Tax Cut. The dollar's weak due to our prodigious and crippling deficit, my generation is going to have to either jack taxes waaay up or slash necessary programs to repair Bush's damage...and I didn't make any appreciable amount from the tax cut.

Trade deficit is solved by increasing manufacturing at home. You'd either need incentives for business to stay here instead of moving to Asia (service jobs) or Europe (heavy industry). Alternativly, you'd need to take a protectionist stance on trade. We're sort of in between and pussy footing around the issue at the moment.