I didn't think you were one to abandon progress for the sake of purity.It doesn't redistribute the load nearly well enough to compensate for the beating middle incomes have taken since 1980.
I didn't know that, thank you.
I didn't think you were one to abandon progress for the sake of purity.
I'm not. I'm just saying you're trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine. If we want to better fund SS & the rest of the govt we'll have to get the funding from people who have money, not from the lower 90% of incomes. A huge % of national income has escaped out the top of the SS tax structure.
There are still a lot of people who believe in paying their own way, or at least doing their damndest to. I personally like to think that I will have at least had a hand in the benefits that I may eventually receive, and the fact that some of the benefit will come from others is anathema to me, though it's how things are set up so I'm sure I'll accept it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I don't think of myself as a victim, and I don't think of others as victims either, generally (of course there are many exceptions). The great majority of people that I encounter are where they are because of themselves, not because of some nefarious outside influence. I know that I could be more successful, given more focus and discipline. I know the same is true for many if not most. Maybe this way of thinking is just alien here. No doubt I'll be cast as a tool of the rich, instead of someone who has given things a bit of thought.I'm not. I'm just saying you're trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine. If we want to better fund SS & the rest of the govt we'll have to get the funding from people who have money, not from the lower 90% of incomes. A huge % of national income has escaped out the top of the SS tax structure.
The full tax is paid for through the labor of the workers. That half the tax shows on the employers tab is a polite fiction. Employers care about the total cost of labor.We have lots of redistribution already, and there will be even more of it in the future. As I said, even a straight FICA rate increase hits employers for half. That's more redistribution.
I'm good with wealth transfer like this. Capitalism transfers wealth in one direction, progressive taxation can transfer it in another.What you describe is simply another wealth transfer with a nice sounding name, since those above the cap don't see any increased benefit for their dollar. I know "wealth transfer" doesn't ring any alarm bells for you, but it does for a great number of those who pay attention. A straight rate increase is at least honest, and paid equally by the future recipient and by the ones you'd like to tax more, and is, in fact, a wealth transfer, just a more modest one.
I think I could support lifting the cap on Medicare only, though.
Edit: Also, I think the retirement age should be indexed according to a formula that takes number of years the average person is expected to survive after retirement into account.
Run a business for a while and see if you still think it's a fiction. A lot of people don't even know that their employer has to match what they themselves pay.The full tax is paid for through the labor of the workers. That half the tax shows on the employers tab is a polite fiction. Employers care about the total cost of labor.
When an employer decides to hire an employee the total cost of labor is what matters and the SS tax is part of that cost. Dividing the SS tax in two and saying "this half is paid by the employee and that half by the employer" is silly. It is the value of the employee's labor that pays for the entire tax.Run a business for a while and see if you still think it's a fiction. A lot of people don't even know that their employer has to match what they themselves pay.
When an employer decides to hire an employee the total cost of labor is what matters and the SS tax is part of that cost. Dividing the SS tax in two and saying "this half is paid by the employee and that half by the employer" is silly. It is the value of the employee's labor that pays for the entire tax.
There are still a lot of people who believe in paying their own way, or at least doing their damndest to. I personally like to think that I will have at least had a hand in the benefits that I may eventually receive, and the fact that some of the benefit will come from others is anathema to me, though it's how things are set up so I'm sure I'll accept it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned. I don't think of myself as a victim, and I don't think of others as victims either, generally (of course there are many exceptions). The great majority of people that I encounter are where they are because of themselves, not because of some nefarious outside influence. I know that I could be more successful, given more focus and discipline. I know the same is true for many if not most. Maybe this way of thinking is just alien here. No doubt I'll be cast as a tool of the rich, instead of someone who has given things a bit of thought.
I can't really discuss this with you, because your knowledge is abstract, and mine is a gut-wrenching reality that I have to face every quarter. Also, I'm out there busting my ass too, not up in some ivory tower rubbing my hands together contemplating all the obscene profits I get off the backs of my workers.When an employer decides to hire an employee the total cost of labor is what matters and the SS tax is part of that cost. Dividing the SS tax in two and saying "this half is paid by the employee and that half by the employer" is silly. It is the value of the employee's labor that pays for the entire tax.
Well, I wasn't talking about SSDI, that's kind of a different thing.That's the "anybody can do it" argument. It doesn't mean everybody can do it, which is what we're really talking about.
My point is very much reality. If your employees are not providing value that exceeds the total cost of their labor then why do you continue to employ them? There should be no gut wrenching here. Why is every quarter gut wrenching? The tax isn't a surprise.I can't really discuss this with you, because your knowledge is abstract, and mine is a gut-wrenching reality that I have to face every quarter. Also, I'm out there busting my ass too, not up in some ivory tower rubbing my hands together contemplating all the obscene profits I get off the backs of my workers.
I can't really discuss this with you, because your knowledge is abstract, and mine is a gut-wrenching reality that I have to face every quarter. Also, I'm out there busting my ass too, not up in some ivory tower rubbing my hands together contemplating all the obscene profits I get off the backs of my workers.
Well, I wasn't talking about SSDI, that's kind of a different thing.
You're not getting it. The whole system is organized to beat the cash out of the little guys & give it to the big guys. There was a time when we compensated better with unions, regulated industries, more progressive taxes & so forth. The state of commerce & technology favored the working person more, as well. Capitalists needed to spend proportionally more on labor to make a profit. As that changed, the big guys took a bigger piece of the pie leaving the rest of us with proportionally less.
Thomas Frank, the author best-known for "What's the Matter with Kansas?" who's also a Washington political journalist, places the blame for the election of President Donald Trump squarely on the back of the Democratic Party and its abandonment of working-class Americans.
Democrats abandoned working class
https://journalstar.com/news/state-...cle_ac0f1ee6-d145-5e2d-a467-8a8989fddab3.html
"They love it when unions work hard for them and give them campaign funds," Frank said in a telephone interview.
"But they aren't deeply concerned with the problems faced by working-class people," he said. "They need to stop taking those people for granted."
What they got in exchange for that neglect was Trump, he said.
I think the problem here is education. It's easy to save a little and have that add up to a lot later on, but how many 18 year old's have a retirement fund? Everyone of them should have one and know why it's important. Finance - specifically the topics of loans, interest, and credit should be taught in every high school.
Start doing this now, and younger generations will be better prepared for SS changes.
Personally, I'd rather have the government get out of my paycheck and let me manage my own money for retirement. Remove SS, and replace it with a lower cost program for those who will - inevitably - still need help.
Sadly, the empirical research shows financial education has little effect on retirement savings choices. A better answer is to automatically opt everyone in to a savings program and force them to affirmatively opt out.
It was made universal for a very specific reason. Look what happens with food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, etc. Political opposition labels anyone who uses it as lazy, a mooch, etc, then tries to get them scaled back or eliminated. This is what would happen with social security.
Education won't help. We've known for years ....