Posted: 11/9/2012 4:45 PM
fldore wrote: But regardless Im sure youll see a conservative again. The problem is not enough people in this country understand the gravity of the economic situation we are in. All this talk of blaming Bush is silly. The housing crisis, which wasnt his fault, and two wars only accelerated a looming problem; it didnt create the problem. We have fundamental structural problems with our entitlement spending but by electing Obama, we've decided to kick the can down the road another 4 years. He isnt going to do anything to fix entitlements. He made healthcare more expensive and the only attempt at doing anything with social security with Simpson-Bowles he decided to nix. And that would have saved only 4 trillion over 10 years but was considered too extreme. In 15 years 4 trillion will be a drop in the bucket. By then our federal revenue wont be enough to cover just entitlements and interest on our debt let alone all the other federal expenditures.
Posted: 11/10/2012 12:45 PM
mathknapp wrote: My opinion? (or at least my working solution). Eliminate the Bush tax cuts on earners over $250K. Eliminate half of the Bush tax cuts on earners from 100k-250k. Keep the tax cuts on those under $100K. If the concerns about the economic recovery are too strong we can always consider postponing this a year ... but not much longer. In any event, institute the Buffet rule and get rid of the carried interest loophole. Simultaneously, freeze all non-military and entitlement spending for the next 5 years. No department gets an increase in funds. I don't know enough about the inner workings of medicare and medicaid to say what I think should be done, but something must be done to cut costs. It will decrease the quality of service. That will suck for the people affected. It may be unavoidable. THe SS age needs to go to up. The SS payout may also need to be decreased (or frozen for several years and not given inflation increases). This will suck. Many elderly may need to move in with family and give up their homes at younger ages. It will be unpopular. There may not be a choice. The military sequestration cuts should be put into effect.
Posted: 11/10/2012 3:56 PM
fldore wrote: Social security needs to be radically overhauled. The original purpose to help out the elderly who run out of retirement savings and are kicked out on to the street sure is great and gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling. But its turned into this 25 year retirement fund thats completely unsustainable. But nobody cares.
Posted: 11/10/2012 4:32 PM
mathknapp wrote: I agree with this. The original intent of social security was to keep grandma and grandpa above the poverty line -- not to insure their continued standard of living for 20 years into retirement. I realize that not all elderly are fortunate enough to have such options, but once upon a time having 3 generations of a family living in the same house was standard. I'm not sure that we haven't lost something by ending that dynamic.
Posted: 11/11/2012 12:13 AM
Posted: 11/11/2012 11:42 AM
DCDore wrote: Great summary, math. One additional thought; no one has mentioned the huge tax break for people making >$100k - the 6.2% (normally) that they don't pay in withholding. Another regressive tax. What would the viability of Social Security look like if there were no limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax? Or if the withholding tax were progressive even?
Posted: 11/11/2012 1:15 PM
Posted: 11/11/2012 1:45 PM
Posted: 11/11/2012 2:10 PM
Posted: 11/11/2012 3:28 PM
DCDore wrote: Social Security taxes apply only to the first ~$100k in earnings (adjusted annually for inflation). Thus, someone making $250K, $500k or $5mm would pay Social Security taxes on only the first $100k of income.Therefore, if someone makes $100k, the combined marginal tax rate is 31.2% (25% FIT + 6.2% SS); of income rises to say $125k, the combined marginal tax rate is 25% (FIT only)
Posted: 11/11/2012 3:37 PM
Posted: 11/12/2012 8:02 AM
doreking wrote: The federal government has, and should have, virtually no role over social issues. I view them as a distraction in election, and the federal governments role is trivial at best.The main roles of the federal government are to provide defense, and regulate interstate commerce. That should be what the elections are about--not birth control or gay marriage. Even abortion should be a state by state issue--the supreme court wrongly usurped this authority from the states in roe v wade.
Posted: 11/12/2012 8:50 AM
Posted: 11/12/2012 9:27 AM
VUGearhead wrote: I would tie that in with at least a 10% spending cut (aka haircut) across all federal departments, including entitlements. But this is probably too much like the fiscal cliff (maybe even worse). I'll caucus with knapp and fldore on this one.
Posted: 11/12/2012 11:02 AM
VUGearhead wrote: What I think is bizarre is that the SS income cap wasn't increased in line with inflation. I think it has only been raised once since SS was enacted. The income cap was designed (IIRC) to capture SS contributions from 90% of earned income. However, by not tying the income cap to inflation, that percentage has slowly eroded over time to where it is only, what? 75% or something now?I personally, do not have a problem with raising the income cap on SS contributions to get it back to that 90% percentile.. That, and ending the Bush tax cuts for everyone. How's that for a tax plan from a fiscal conservative?Now, here's the big BUT......I would tie that in with at least a 10% spending cut (aka haircut) across all federal departments, including entitlements. But this is probably too much like the fiscal cliff (maybe even worse). I'll caucus with knapp and fldore on this one.
Last edited 11/12/2012 11:03 AM by DCDore
Posted: 11/12/2012 12:48 PM
DCDore wrote: Clearly, this is written without having the CBO determine the comparative impact.
Posted: 11/12/2012 12:55 PM
mathknapp wrote: DCDore wrote: Clearly, this is written without having the CBO determine the comparative impact.What? You couldn't call in a favor and get this vetted for us? Seriously, your handle even indicates you might live in DC. You could probably just walk it over on your lunch break...
Posted: 11/12/2012 3:13 PM
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|