The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[PaloAltoCougar]

I am conflicted about these proposals. Again, if you favor progressive taxation or Nordic taxation schemes, you may not identify with my angst. As an example, my relative has contributed to the system since he was able. (As an aside, he has worked since he was ten and is now over 80). Because he continues to work, mainly because he likes working, his Social Security check is reduced. In other words, he has for more than four five decades contributed the maximum but his benefit is reduced because he continues to work and to contribute. Yes, he makes a nice living, not in magnitude of PAC, but a decent living. A person already paying withholdings at the 118K cap pays or has contributed for him about $18,000 (math done in head $15.4%). So somebody such as my father has his less than $3000 monthly reduced and pays the maximum in social security. Thus because my relative elects NOT to retire, he receives a reduced SSA benefit, continues to max out the deductions and you're advocating he should continue to pay more and get even less despite fifty years of contributions. I'm still scratching my head why everybody is a fan of eliminating or lifting the cap on higher wage earners and thinks those who do modestly well should be taxed to such a great extent. And paying more and extra does NOT increase what you will receive. Do you not see wee bit of inequity, or do you just accept the progressive taxation and high incomes are bad mantra without further deliberation?

I think one can accept the propriety of progressive taxation, even with deliberation! Who doesn't? Proponents of a flat tax usually hasten to mention they wouldn't impose taxes on, or would provide credits/benefits to, those on the low end of the scale, which seems like a more modest variation of the progressive theme.

BTW, let me add a little fuel to your fire by noting another highly progressive (or, from another's perspective, punitive) element of the SS system. If you max out on contributions every year for 35 years, while I reach only half of the cap each year for the same period, one might think my benefit will be half of yours. But it's not. Rather, and don't hold me to the exact percentage, I'll probably get around 80% of what you get, despite having contributed only half as much. Getting away from the personal example, I'm okay with that disparity--if a working stiff paid into the system for 35 years, bless him, and I won't begrudge him his relative windfall. I've benefited from the sacrifices, hard work and efforts of others in ways disproportionate to my own contributions so that focusing on this one inequity seems short-sighted given the tremendous benefits our society provides. But that certainly doesn't mean we need to go all Marx/Sanders on this....

Plus, I think high incomes are great. After I retire from my law practice in 3-4 years I'm off to Welding School.

[Topper]

I think one can accept the propriety of progressive taxation, even with deliberation! Who doesn't? Proponents of a flat tax usually hasten to mention they wouldn't impose taxes on, or would provide credits/benefits to, those on the low end of the scale, which seems like a more modest variation of the progressive theme.

BTW, let me add a little fuel to your fire by noting another highly progressive (or, from another's perspective, punitive) element of the SS system. If you max out on contributions every year for 35 years, while I reach only half of the cap each year for the same period, one might think my benefit will be half of yours. But it's not. Rather, and don't hold me to the exact percentage, I'll probably get around 80% of what you get, despite having contributed only half as much. Getting away from the personal example, I'm okay with that disparity--if a working stiff paid into the system for 35 years, bless him, and I won't begrudge him his relative windfall. I've benefited from the sacrifices, hard work and efforts of others in ways disproportionate to my own contributions so that focusing on this one inequity seems short-sighted given the tremendous benefits our society provides. But that certainly doesn't mean we need to go all Marx/Sanders on this....

Plus, I think high incomes are great. After I retire from my law practice in 3-4 years I'm off to Welding School.

I agree with the provisions in any single rate tax, a flat tax is a misnomer, which exempt whatever is necessary for support. It is meant to be a single rate on monies which are taxed. Thus, it is mildly progressive. The government shouldn't take before the individual can provide for himself.

As far allowing somebody a disproportionate recovery that doesn't bother me as much as that of my relative, contributing, continuing to contribute and having his continued productivity punish him in regard to the his SSA benefit.

I am glad you were able to purchase a Welding School to help the less fortunate among us provide for ourselves in our old age, after we pay you back loans and interest.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Did Lebowski reopen the case?

[Joe Public]

But something bigger and more equitable needs to be done. It bothers me my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay a lot more into, or take a lot less out of, the system in order to pay for my generation. Although it's against my self-interest (if one excludes concern for my descendants from self-interest), I wish the candidates and Congress had the courage to back a plan like Simpson-Bowles or similar proposals (e.g., gradually raise the retirement age higher, raise the cap gradually, etc.). If they did all that, I'd be willing to go along with means-testing on benefits, as long as it reduced only somewhat our benefit.

I think I've discussed it here before, but I would support a pay/go system starting immediately for SS benefits. I think we're still at or around the 100% mark (of outgoing payments covered by incoming payroll taxes). That is projected to drift downward over the next twenty years to reach 75% by the year 2035. Retirees - both current and future - will sacrifice some as their benefits are slowly reduced. However, the trust fund, which is just $2.7+ trillion in notes that will have to be paid via increased national debt, increased non-payroll taxation, etc., could be eliminated. If voters want to pay more to retirees, we can have our representatives increase the payroll tax percentages/cutoffs/etc.

I also still like the idea of a partial opt-out where workers would have the employee portion of their withholdings go into a retirement account in exchange for not receiving SS retirement benefits in the future. The employer portion would still go to the government to pay SS obligations.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Did Lebowski reopen the case?

Nope.

Somebody PM me if this ridiculous threadjack ever ends and we get back to discussing the election. TIA.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Nope.

Somebody PM me if this ridiculous threadjack ever ends and we get back to discussing the election. TIA.

OK, I'll stop, but as threadjacks go, is it really ridiculous (I'll concede tedious)? However redundant or soporific the exchange has been, it arises from one of the major focal points of the campaign, doesn't it?

[Topper]

OK, I'll stop, but as threadjacks go, is it really ridiculous (I'll concede tedious)? However redundant or soporific the exchange has been, it arises from one of the major focal points of the campaign, doesn't it?

At time when the campaign is laboring before it kicks into action, what else can be expected?

The issue of social security benefits is an issue, how it will be funded in the future is a continuing issue and how it works is usually only understood by those for whom it does apply or may still apply.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK, I'll stop, but as threadjacks go, is it really ridiculous (I'll concede tedious)? However redundant or soporific the exchange has been, it arises from one of the major focal points of the campaign, doesn't it?

No, feel free to carry on as long as you like. I always find your positions sound, rational, and well-articulated. I just find this particular topic tedious, especially with some of the other characters involved. I started skimming several pages back, so don't mind me. Just chiming in because HFN called me out.

[Moliere]

[Topper]

Good stuff.

[New Mexican Disaster]

Almost as funny as when my mom fell down.

[il Padrino Ute]

I was a bit disappointed. I was hoping the Hildabeast had tumbled down the stairs. That would have been good for the country.

[TripletDaddy]

Hillary's packin' a little bit.

[Topper]

Hillary's packin' a little bit.

What? Too much in the caboose?

[Omaha 680]

This is the Kasich I have watched for years and want to vote for.

"I've about had it with these people," Kasich said at the rally in Westerville, Ohio. "We got one candidate that says we ought to abolish Medicaid and Medicare. You ever heard of anything so crazy as that? Telling our people in this country who are seniors, who are about to be seniors that we're going to abolish Medicaid and Medicare?"

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has acknowledged that he would like to gut Medicare.

Kasich went on, saying, "We got one person saying we ought to have a 10 percent flat tax that will drive up the deficit in this country by trillions of dollars" and there's another challenger in the field who "says we ought to take 10 or 11 [million] people and pick them up — I don't know where we're going to go, their homes, their apartments — we're going to pick them up and scream at them to get out of our country. That's crazy. That is just crazy."

Donald Trump has expressed support for deporting immigrants living in the country illegally.

"We got people proposing health care reform that's going to leave, I believe, millions of people without adequate health insurance," Kasich says. "What has happened to our party? What has happened the conservative movement?"

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...didates-215233