Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security
Over the years, most if not all of the current Republican presidential field have advocated reforming Social Security by guaranteeing the benefits of those in or approaching retirement while giving younger Americans the option of putting at least some of their contributions in personal or private accounts.
Rick Perry, for example, has called Social Security “a monstrous lie” for young people, although he has backed off that recently. Michele Bachmann last year also talked of wanting to wean younger Americans off the program, although she too has softened that rhetoric. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney repeatedly endorsed the privatization approach suggested by President Bush, repeating that support in his 2010 book. (Yes, he too has now changed his tune to a degree.) And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.
Like President Bush in 2005, however, none of the candidates addresses the enormous financial challenges of such a transition. It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.
Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
In a study exploring the possibility of copying the Chilean example here in the United States, the Congressional Research Service outlined some of the major obstacles:
Absent other measures, keeping Social Security’ s commitments would require the government to raise taxes, cut spending on other programs, or borrow more from private financial markets. Put another way, a generation or two would have to pay twice, bearing both the cost of pre-funding the new system and the costs of benefits under the old system.
The United States already is faced with chronic budget deficit problems, leaving little or no room for the massive tax hikes or public borrowing that would be necessary (the Social Security Administration estimates if all workers currently under age 40 were to stop paying into Social Security, the system would need an infusion of $6.9 trillion in order to pay promised benefits to those remaining in the system).
That was written in 1998, at a time when — to put it mildly — our nation’s finances were in considerably better shape than they are today. That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.
All in all, a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources would probably be needed to finance such a transition. So until you identify a source for that kind of money, talk of personal or private accounts is mere wishful thinking.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
518 comments Add your comment
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
11:53 pm
Sooth: @ 10:43
You need to get out more !
TAPS !
Normal
September 27th, 2011
6:43 am
Happy Tuesday to all y’all!
http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/09/26/political-pictures-occupy-wall-street-cannibalism-cormac-mccarthy-approves/
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/09/26/funny-pictures-wrong-guess-again/
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:13 am
mornin’. I haven’t skimmed the evening comments; I am gonna go out on a limb and assume that the usual suspects are still in denial about the math.
meanwhile–
What media coverage omits about U.S. hikers released by Iran
In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay; they’d remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world; and conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S.
We do not believe that such human rights violation on the part of our government justify what has been done to us: not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments – including the government of Iran – to act in kind.
Sucks having that mirror held up in front of us, doesn’t it?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:18 am
More from the link. (And you guys who whinge and moan about Teh Librul Media? for the record? can suck it.)
Unsurprisingly, one searches in vain for the inclusion of these facts and remarks in American media accounts of their release and subsequent press conference. Instead, typical is this ABC News story, which featured tearful and celebratory reactions from their family, detailed descriptions of their conditions and the pain and fear their family endured, and melodramatic narratives about how their “long, grueling imprisonment is over” after “781 days in Iran’s most notorious prison.” This ABC News article on their press conference features many sentences about Iran’s oppressiveness — “Hikers Return to the U.S.: ‘We Were Held Hostage’”; “we heard the screams of other prisoners being beaten” — with hardly any mention of the criticisms Fattal and Bauer voiced regarding U.S. policy that provided the excuse for their mistreatment and similar treatment which the U.S. doles out both in War on Terror prisons around the world and even domestic prisons at home.
Their story deserves the attention it is getting, and Iran deserves the criticism. But the first duty of the American “watchdog media” should be highlighting the abuses of the U.S. Government, not those of other, already-hated regimes on the other side of the world. Instead, the abuses at home are routinely suppressed while those in the Hated Nations are endlessly touted. There have been thousands of people released after being held for years and years in U.S. detention despite having done nothing wrong. Many were tortured, and many were kept imprisoned despite U.S. government knowledge of their innocence. Have you ever seen anything close to this level of media attention being devoted to their plight, to hearing how America’s lawless detention of them for years — often on a strange island, thousands of miles away from everything they know — and its systematic denial of any legal redress, devastated their families and destroyed their lives?
This is a repeat of what happened with the obsessive American media frenzy surrounding the arrest and imprisonment by Iran of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, convicted in a sham proceeding of espionage, sentenced to eight years in prison, but then ordered released by an Iranian appeals court after four months. Saberi’s case became a true cause célèbre among American journalists, with large numbers of them flamboyantly denouncing Iran and demanding her release. But when their own government imprisoned numerous journalists for many years without any charges of any kind — Al Jazeera’s Sami al-Haj in Guantanamo, Associated Press’ Bilal Hussein for more than two years in Iraq, Reuters’ photographer Ibrahim Jassan even after an Iraqi court exonerated him, and literally dozens of other journalists without charge — it was very difficult to find any mention of their cases in American media outlets.
What we find here yet again is that government-serving American establish media outlets relish the opportunity to report negatively on enemies and other adversaries of the U.S. government (that is the same mindset that accounts for the predicable, trite condescension by the New York Times toward the Wall Street protests, the same way they constantly downplayed Iraq War protests). But to exactly the same extent that they love depicting America’s Enemies as Bad, they hate reporting facts that make the U.S. Government look the same.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:24 am
Anyhow, here’s the original Democracy Now reporting on the hikers’ press conference that prompted the Salon bit I posted.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/26/freed_us_hiker_shane_bauer_iranian
(includes transcript.)
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:27 am
Stands,
Good post!
Bill Orvis White
September 27th, 2011
7:27 am
Why can’t WE THE PEOPLE invest our OWN DOLLARS the way WE see fit? I just don’t get it! SS is the ultimate Ponzi Scheme whereby BIG GOV’T takes our hard-earned dollar$ and attempts to invest them to their advantage. What happened to choice? Hussein Obama wants choice for a pregnant 13-year-old to end her baby’s life, but “he” won’t let us invest our own money? I JUST DON’T GET IT!
GOOD NIGHT,
Bill
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:31 am
I think I finally get it. Bill Orvis White is really a parrot.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:31 am
“It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.”
Wow…the irony of you saying this, Jay, is that is could fairly be applied to a whole lot of things said and done by politicians (and people in general – maybe even to some of your columns). We are all of us idiot savants.
Jimmy62
September 27th, 2011
7:33 am
I’ve got a miracle idea… Let’s get rid of it altogether and let people keep their money!
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:35 am
Buck – seriously, knock off the Buffet-bashing.
Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:36 am
Let’s get rid of it altogether and let people keep their money!
you can also ignore these knuckle-draggers. Because even knuckle-draggy people like this guy know that you cannot go out on the private market and buy a guaranteed annuity for yourself on anything like the terms you get from paying into FICA.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:37 am
Okay, so I think it was DDR yesterday who wanted to call the claim (by some conservatives on this blog) that if you don’t vote for Obama you’re racist a lie. I responded that it is clear that some people on the left view opposition to Obama as racist. Now, apparently, even an accurate transcription of his speech to the CBC is being called racist: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/associated-press-transcription-obama-cbc-speech-racist-173438340.html.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:38 am
oh, and as Paul likes to remind me–you “let’s keep our own money” people have to factor in survivor benefits as well.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
7:39 am
stands for decibels
“Sucks having that mirror held up in front of us, doesn’t it?”
Oh sure. It is totally comparable to torture two kids for hiking as compared to known terrorist caught on the battlefield.
Liberal logic. At times this place would make your average asylum look reasonable.
Ronnie Raygun
September 27th, 2011
7:40 am
It’s funny how the right-wing “solutions” to medicare and SS always involve raising the qualifying ages. They try to justify this by stating that life expectancy has gone up. But the main reason life expectancy has gone up over the past 60 years is that infant mortality has gone down dramatically, not that people are living much longer. For someone who works at an office, two or three extra working years might not be a strain, but to someone who does manual labor, it can be out of the question.
Speaking of retirement ages, why aren’t the Cons concerned about the skyrocketing cost of military pensions and medical benefits? In the military, you can retire with a full taxpayer funded pension and $400 a year family medical benefits for life at age 37. So the taxpayer get to fund 40-50 years of vacation for some government workers that pay nothing into the system, but we have to cut the benefits for the self-funding system we paid into our entire adult lives. Sounds like some people are milking the system.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
7:41 am
stands for decibels
Perhaps if Buffet had not fought the IRS for years to avoid paying almost a billion in taxes, he would have had a bit more credibility.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:44 am
Strawman, your link doesn’t work. This one does, though.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/44679355#44679355
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
7:46 am
Strawman
Wanna try that link again
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:47 am
terrorist caught on the battlefield.
ha ha ha.
Filed under “more stupid crap conservatives choose to believe.”
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:48 am
GLL,
Torture is worng, period. It is against the Geneva Convention. The day we started to torture, we lost the moral high ground that made our country great. When we began to torture we became just like the terrorists we were fighting. If you can’t see that, well, that would be seriously sad. Of all the things George Bush and Dick Cheney did,
losing us our moral and spiritual standing in the world was the worst.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
7:48 am
Good Little Liberal
You are pro-torture?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:51 am
They try to justify this by stating that life expectancy has gone up.
Yeah. Such folk lie about two things:
1) they want you to ignore life expectancy from age 65 onwards, which has climbed only a few years in the past fifty years; and
2) they want you to imagine that these things called “actuarials” didn’t exist back in the olden days, when dinosaurs and FDR roamed the earth, and that the New Dealers had NO. IDEA. that demographics would indicate an aging overall population.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:55 am
You are pro-torture?
only (snort) if they’ve been “caught on Teh Battlefield!”
that one never fails to crack me up. These people have no friggin’ clue of the circumstances under which we’ve arrested people and held them without charge, without due process, in an absolute mockery of what we claim to stand for.
and no, I do not give Obama a pass for carrying on this Cheneyite monstrosity over the years. How the President squares that with his supposed conscience, I have no idea. See also:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/03/the-flustercluck-doctrine/
and what the heck, this too:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/05/the-true-story/
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:55 am
“Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored.”
Huh? How do you figure? If Buffet claims he should be paying more taxes and then does not voluntarily do so, he is NOT putting his money where his mouth is. Let’s make this simpler by analogy. If one keeps saying “I should give money to help the poor in my neighborhood” but does not (when there is ample opportunity), what can be concluded? He is not serious about doing the thing he said – plain and simple.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to taxing those wealthy individuals more who are NOT directly creating jobs in some fashion (those who are should be be rewarded with lower tax rates). But be honest: for Obama to repeatedly use Buffet’s statements as THE basis for his argument that ALL wealthy people are not paying their “fair share” of taxes is both specious and duplicitous. It’s much like when he made the two year tax break given corporate jet owners THE metaphor for tax exemptions gone wild (though they amount for a miniscule – almost microscopic – amount of lost tax revenue). It almost seems that Obama never took a logic class in college. Indeed he constant and excessively redundant allusion to both Buffet and corporate jet owners show that he is not trying to persuade people by reason but by rhetoric – perhaps because his arguments are unsound to begin with or he views people as stupid.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:01 am
Strawman
Obama NEVER used ALL.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:01 am
Huh? How do you figure?
well, I can go guilt-by-association, i.e., “because stupid people like Michelle Bachmann say it.”
But mostly it makes no sense. Taken this type of argument to its logical end, you can claim that nobody who supports this or that policy can’t speak to its efficacy unless he or she has personally contributed goo-gobs of personal wealth to support it him or herself.
It’s one of these.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:04 am
aw crud. it’s, um, one of these.
http://images.wikia.com/foundonthetapearg/images/4/41/Red_herring.jpg
Politi Cal
September 27th, 2011
8:05 am
Well, we’re all so smart, so what’s the solution? I am 65, and I’ve worked every day since I was 18 (including working my way through college and paying my own tuition.) I’m not an economist, nor a banker nor even a very good money manager, but I know a problem when I see one. We have one! Is there anyone smart enough to solve the SS poroblem without offending a generation of workers? (You name the generation.)
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:06 am
Obama NEVER used ALL.
But I’m touched by conservatives’ compassion for ALL the oppressed upper-two-percentiles, aren’t you? think I… need a… tissue… it’s beautiful, man.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
8:07 am
Social Security, as we know it, is a creatrion of German socialist and first put into place by
Otto von Bismarck. It is pure socialism. Brought to us by Democrats.
Medicare is socialism brought to us by Democrats and Republicans, the base bill by LBJ, the expansion of benefits by Ronnie and the prescription bill by George W.
Every president since Hoover has been a socialist. Why do we keep electing socialist?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:08 am
I’m not an economist, nor a banker nor even a very good money manager, but I know a problem when I see one.
Which problem is that–the one we’ll have in a couple of decades when we actually begin to start running in the red? How about we go about trying to correct it in a few years when our economy is in better shape and most everyone who wants to work at a job they’re qualified for, can do so?
It’s not like it’s all that hard to fix, but the solutions are going to involve raising revenue on some higher income earners, and there’s really no point in freaking out anyone over it in 2011 or 2012, really.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:09 am
“Obama NEVER used ALL.”
If he refers to wealthy people repeatedly without, in the same breath, repeatedly qualifying what he means then he is implicitly generalizing – because that is how people will understand him. If I go around saying Fords are junk (without saying all), how will you or anyone else interpret that? They will interpret it as if I meant all. Look, when Obama makes these statements he is not doing so in a casual moment to a few friends (where we don’t have to be so careful about what and ho we say things). He is making these statements to the nation as a whole. If instead of always saying “the wealthy” he said “a number of the wealthy” then I would be fine with that. But he doesn’t.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:10 am
Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored
Ok- how about that Buffet evaded more than $1 billion of taxes through a loophole for the wealthy using a donation to the Gates foundation. Don’t mean to get in the way of the worship of the liberal gods-
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:11 am
Strawman
He NEVER said All.
YOU DID.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:13 am
how about that Buffet evaded more than $1 billion of taxes through a loophole for the wealthy using a donation to the Gates foundation.
“Evaded”? By spending a billion dollars?
You really have nothing.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:14 am
And as long as you’re crying about “evasion,” make sure you head to one of the biggest Bapto-plexs you can find on Sunday and tell everyone that they’re a bunch tax evaders for writin’ off their
country club feechurch contributions. Let us know how that works out for ya.Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:16 am
“But mostly it makes no sense. Taken this type of argument to its logical end, you can claim that nobody who supports this or that policy can’t speak to its efficacy unless he or she has personally contributed goo-gobs of personal wealth to support it him or herself.”
It makes not sense to you, it seems. Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy? It is basically judging others for not doing something that you yourself don’t do. It does not necessarily have anything to with money. But in Buffet’s case it does. If he really and truly believes he should have paid more taxes, then why hasn’t he? If I’m an employer and want to pay a new employee ten dollars an hour but don’t because the minimum wage is $7.25, but go around saying “they should raise the minimum wage,” what would you think of me?
Peter
September 27th, 2011
8:17 am
Would there be a need to fix SS if the Republican’s had a balanced budget all these years and didn’t start made up wars ?
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:18 am
“YOU DID.”
I stand by my statement.
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:18 am
Peter @0817,
Well said and good point!
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:19 am
Strawman
If Buffett is a hypocrite for not volunterring a check, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check.
Goose meet gander.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:20 am
You really have nothing
too funny Flash Gordon. He “donated” more than $6 billion of Berkshire stock to Gates foundation. He could have easily sold the stock and paid the appropriate taxes.
Go back to your comic books, kneeling to your pseudo gods, and wallowing in your ignorance.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:20 am
“But I’m touched by conservatives’ compassion for ALL the oppressed upper-two-percentiles, aren’t you? ”
Just curious, what do you (or have you) personally do(ne) for the truly oppressed?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:21 am
Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy?
yeah. It’s something you drag out when you’ve lost the argument, usually. it’s the same brilliant argument made against, oh, what Al Gore may have said at a given moment about greenhouse gas emissions–”oh yeah well why did he fly a JET to pick up his NOBEL PRIZE Huh huh huh? why didn’t he row a kayak there instead! oh, and he’s FAT!”
…it’s just another way to deflect, and get people thinking about something else. like, say, Al Gore in a Speedo.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:22 am
Republicans should have learned math.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
He could have easily sold the stock and paid the appropriate taxes.
… and not accomplished something he wanted to do, legally. The dirty b@st@rd!
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
“If Buffett is a hypocrite for not volunterring a check, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check.”
Huh? You lost me. Not withholding how?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
what do you (or have you) personally do(ne) for the truly oppressed?
I rarely if ever get into personal-life stuff here, sorry.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
Go back to your comic books, kneeling to your pseudo gods, and wallowing in your ignorance.
Yup. He really really really really has nothing.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
8:24 am
Buffet’s dead on about the wealthy not paying their share.. And you toadies hate him for it, because it flies in the face of your idiotic, ascetic ideology.
Loopholes, shelters, dodges, giveaways, handouts, bailouts, creative accounting, off-shore havens for the super-rich.
And you self-destructive fake conservatives couldn’t help them get enough of it could you? Hoping that it would all trickle down on you fools.
Now, you seem to have had some questions as to why after thirty plus years of this transparent absurdity, it isn’t happening for you.
WHAT? Gazillionaires pay a smaller effective tax rate than I do? How can that be?
You working class clowns make up the difference and eat cake.
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still f&cking peasants as far as I can see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:26 am
Strawman
Ok try this…
“If Buffett is a hypocrite for not voluntering a check to pay extra taxes, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check for the taxes you don’t think you should pay.”
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:26 am
anyway, I think I’ll bid a-doody, lessn’ Jay’s got something new for us. later…
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:27 am
“It’s something you drag out when you’ve lost the argument, usually.”
Ah…is that what hypocrisy is? Thanks for the enlightenment. Please define deflection for me next. And let us all know when your work on the OED will resume.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:30 am
I sure would like to see that Republican math for balancing the budget and paying off the debt. Is it still based on us reaching an inflation-free unemployment rate of less than four percent and it staying that way for ten years.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:31 am
““If Buffett is a hypocrite for not voluntering a check to pay extra taxes, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check for the taxes you don’t think you should pay.”
That’s where I lost you…on your underlying assumption that I am either wealthy or don’t think I should pay taxes the taxes I now pay. You are wrong on both counts. GG, you can’t make a cogent argument if you don’t first clearly understand your opponent’s position.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:31 am
facts are like gravity- unfortunately. The below from Forbes-
Exploiting the tax code
How does Buffett manage to exploit the tax code? He donates appreciated Berkshire Hathaway stock — which costs him pennies on the dollar — to charity, and receives a fat, juicy tax deduction at the appreciated price without having to pay a capital gains tax on the appreciation. (And, note that the money actually sits in his own charitable organization.) He’s saving income taxes with the ordinary deduction so it’s essentially a tax shelter
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:32 am
Strawman
So what ya’ bitchin about?
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:34 am
It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:35 am
“I rarely if ever get into personal-life stuff here, sorry.”
Then, as far as I’m concerned, your judgements about other people’s concern (or lack thereof) for the oppressed have no proven merit. And I will disregard them accordingly.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:40 am
Granny Godzilla
“You are pro-torture?”
I try to carry on logical conversations with liberals, don’t I?
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:41 am
Normal
It all depends on the definition of torture. Fraternity hazing is worst than what some people call torture.
JKL2
September 27th, 2011
8:42 am
AmVet- Loopholes, shelters, dodges, giveaways, handouts, bailouts, creative accounting, off-shore havens for the super-rich
How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:42 am
“So what ya’ bitchin about?”
Buffet’s hypocrisy and Obama’s use of Buffet as almost a cornerstone of his argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy. I really dislike politicians using rhetoric instead of logic when pushing for policies. It makes me suspect and feel that their positions are fundamentally unsound. I’ll give you an example on the Republican side that bothers me just as much: the mantra that increasing taxes on (ALL – see I used that word again) the wealthy would hurt job creation. They make NO distinction between those wealthy individuals (like small business owners) who actually do create jobs and those who do not (like Brad Pitt). The former should be taxed less and the latter should not.
kayaker 71
September 27th, 2011
8:43 am
AmVet,
If you continue to bitch on about all of those loopholes and ways that the “evil” rich can avoid “paying their fair share”, why don’t you advocate changing the tax code to allow everyone to pay the same? This continued complaining gets old when you ignore the fact that we have the most outmoded tax code in history. I haven’t heard a liberal yet that advocates the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax as a solution or any other solution except “tax the rich”.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:43 am
“It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes.”
Let’s ditch the entire tax code and replace it with something much simpler.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:46 am
Good Little Liberal
Why so evasive?
Strawman
That’s the bug up your bonnet?
Good Lord.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:46 am
“I haven’t heard a liberal yet that advocates the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax as a solution or any other solution except “tax the rich”.
Good point. Are there any liberals who advocate a complete overhaul of the tax system? If not, why not (any posters here care to chime in)?
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:48 am
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:41 am
That was the lamest thing you’ve said yet, and you are still a sanctimonious dit.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:49 am
The Fair Tax is not and never will be.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
excuse me, AmVet
kayaker 71
“f you continue to bitch on about all of those loopholes and ways that the “evil” rich can avoid “paying their fair share”, why don’t you advocate changing the tax code to allow everyone to pay the same?”
Is that not what Pres Obama essentially did when he said those with incomes of a million and up should pay the same effective rate as the middle class? And Republicans dismissed that out of hand?
George P. Burdell
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
Thomas, let me get this straight. Let’s say Buffett gives $1 million to charity in appreciated stock that he originally paid $100,000. The $900,000 in appreciation is subject to the 15% capital gains tax which would be $135,000 making the entire investment net of taxes worth $865,000. On the other side, he gets the charitable donation write off which reduces his taxes at 35% on the $1 million so it has a value to him of $350,000. So the man is giving away something that has a value of $865,000 for a benefit of $350,000 and you somehow think he is “cheating the tax code”. Just because it sits in his own charitable organization doesn’t mean he has free rein with the money. Buffett didn’t get rich making these kind of deals and I wouldn’t recommend you use it for your own personal wealth plan either. Paying $865,000 to get $350,000 until rich does not work. If you disagree, I’ve got 3 five dollar bills for every twenty dollar bill you can find.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes
Everyone should be for it. Get rid of them. Simplify. Graduated rates. Earn more- pay more- but everyone knows what there bill is going to be. Stop the mind numbing credits. If you have an idea to make billions- you can find the money.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:51 am
Stawman
See the right of your screen, up some.
Jay’s archive.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax…not good ideas.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:52 am
I can quit any time, really I can. But, about this…
your judgements about other people’s concern (or lack thereof) for the oppressed have no proven merit. And I will disregard them accordingly.
Meaning you’d been lying awake, sick with worry over whether I really cared about this or that oppressed individual or group, heretofore?
…look, Strawman, I’ve covered this before, in detail, which is why I’m being so flippant now. It’s not you, personally, really, you actually seem somewhat bright (I like how you artfully set up the conditional sentence in your post @ 8.20, f’rinstance.) I’m just kinda tired of the rhetorical merry-go-round.
Because, sure–pointing out hypocrisy in others is good, clean family fun; we all do it. But I never really care all that much for it as a deal-maker argument. I don’t expect, for example, for anyone to really care that Michelle Bachmann benefits from farm subsidies, or that Sarah Palin’s supposed rough-and-tumble rugged-individualist, we-don’t-need-no-Gubmint! state of Alaska basically has to pay people to live there.
Such folk have plenty of other grotesque ideological flaws that need more careful attention.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
8:52 am
Normal
‘dit’?
Do you mean ‘git’?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git
Altho I do think the British version is more colorful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28slang%29
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
8:54 am
“How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?”
Not “less in taxes”…a lower PERCENTAGE in taxes, as he, himself, said
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
Hey George- absolutely yes. He had the opportunity to a) sell his stock b) pay the tax and c) donate the after tax cash. He chose not to do so. He paid attorneys to devise a way to skip a) and b)- by definition a loophole. You are blending the accumulation of wealth with the use of the accumuated weatly. It is exactly the same as Accenture relocating to Ireland to avoid taxes. Anyway, tired of chasing rabbits by ignorant folks.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
“That’s the bug up your bonnet? Good Lord.”
Wow…Shakespeare understood very well the power of rhetoric (as seen in Julius Caesar), advertisers certainly do and I guess one could say Hitler did. But, given the critical state of things for our nation, my concern over politicians acting on impulse and rhetoric rather than reason and principal is just a “bug up my bonnet.” Allllrighhhhhttty then. I think I have a better understanding of you now.
kayaker 71
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
Paul,
You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems if you don’t cut spending at the same time. To continue this insane spending and expect our deficit problem to disappear by taxing the rich to pay for it…… what a pipe dream. We could freeze government spending at the 2008 levels and pay off our debt in less than ten years. But do you think that any Congress, D or R;, would do this? Nope…. makes too much sense.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:56 am
Strawman
Ditto, dude.
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:57 am
Paul,
yes, both of those too.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
8:58 am
Granny, of course the blogger formerly known as George W is pro-torture.
It is part of his purity test. He refers to it as putting wet towels on somebody’s face, And if there was any karmic justice in this world, some federal agents would snatch him up in the dead of night, and give him some “wet towels” in some secret CIA black house. Then they could detain him FOREVER without ever telling him what the charges were. And of course, they would never allow him to see absolutely anybody in order to defend himself against these unspecified charges.
Then I assure you that the habeus corpus hating neo-con would sing a different song.
“…why don’t you advocate changing the tax code…”
Hello, 71?
Is anyone home?
I won’t bother reposting the many times I’ve written that very thing on this forum.
(Do a search on this site for the terms AmVet, pernicious and perverse.)
Our tax code is insane. And not by accident. it was written by whom and for the benefit of whom? Legalized thievery via income redistribution by plutocrats and oligarchs. And of course, our new masters – BIG business.
(Did you see where the Heisman Trophy now has the disgusting AFLAC logo smeared all over it?)
That the apparently brain-dead, self-loathing cons want more of this same shabby treatment is fine with me. But why drag down the rest of working class America with you?
No more welfare for the wealthy. What is so damn hard to understand about that?
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
8:58 am
“if you don’t cut spending at the same time”
and spending cuts of from 3 to 1, to 10 to 1, cuts to revenue increases have been proposed…and shot down everytime.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
9:00 am
We should cut spending. We should get rid of that unfunded prescription drug company benefit for starters. Do it.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
9:01 am
“See the right of your screen, up some. Jay’s archive. Fair Tax, Flat Tax…not good ideas.”
I’ll check it out, but you might as well know that I don’t consider Jay (who I respect as a thoughtful, intelligent liberal) the final authority on such matters. Changing the tax code is no small matter and should be done with much care and deliberation. But one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the current system is very deficient.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
9:03 am
kayaker 71
“You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems if you don’t cut spending at the same time.”
Which is what I believe Pres Obama calls “a balanced approach.’ Selective increases and cuts. But Republicans don’t like tax increases. Unless they’re called ‘tax reform’ (which increases taxes for some).
Y’know, it’s not just you, in fact, you didn’t do it here, but lots of people opposed to raising any rates (particularly on gazillionaires) use the phrase “you could confiscate all the money of all the job creators and it wouldn’t solve the problem.”
That’s like a doctor telling a patient ‘you could lose 100 pounds and it wouldn’t solve the problem.’
When what a doctor says is “if you do this and this and this and maintain that, over time your situation would dramatically improve.’
I agree, there’s not a lot of cooperation. But what I see bottom-line is, Democrats seem more willing to take a broad-brush approach to cutting spending, while Republican proposals (the serious ones, not the ‘eliminate foreign aid’ calls) seem to be directed towards protecting programs that represent income to high-income earners and to reduce programs that, by and large, represent income to the lower and middle classes.
That may not be correct, but that’s how it seems to distill to me.
Joe Mama
September 27th, 2011
9:03 am
Frankiev — “What the liberals fail to say is that privatization would be optional for every individual, or to put it another way, it would be a choice. Isn’t that what liberals like when it comes to abortion.”
You already HAVE a choice, Frankiev. You want a private account? Go out and open one up TODAY.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
9:05 am
Normal
The Brits do have a way with words, don’t they?
Adam
September 27th, 2011
9:05 am
Strawman: Are there any liberals who advocate a complete overhaul of the tax system?
yes, but not the so-called fair tax or flat tax. Income tax should be a progressive system that does not have a bunch of credits that can only be used by the wealthy. I am mostly opposed to ANY tax credits, but especially those for big businesses and wealthy people that are huge and reduce or eliminate tax liability.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
9:06 am
Strawman
Yep, neither of us is a rocket scientist to be sure!
George P. Burdell
September 27th, 2011
9:07 am
Thomas you are mixing the two just as much. The only difference between the two is that the government gets $350,000 more, the charity gets $135,000 less, and of course Buffett loses $350,000. So the government essentially taxes the charity at over 38%. All of this misses the main point that Buffett also has the option of doing absolutely nothing which would mean the charity loses a million and the government loses its $135,000. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are ignorant.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
Frenemy sheets, bitches.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?
Tell me that this is a joke of a question. Please.
What part of the phrase “smaller effective tax rate” seems like quantum physics here?
You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems.
So? That is NOT the reason for doing so, 71.
Justice (remember that word?) IS the reason.
That it moves us in the right direction fiscally is just icing on the cake.
The American middle class is irrefutably getting decimated. I have listed example after example after example to make that point. It is not even debatable anymore.
All while the super-rich are enjoying staggering disparities and actively aggregating most of the nation’s wealth into fewer and fewer and fewer hands.
And according to Republican “conservatism” this is the natural and proper evolution of American capitalism.
To which I say, bull____.
Joe Mama
September 27th, 2011
9:12 am
DBM — “In a legitimate insurance system (which Social Security is not), some people will collect more than they put in. This is called spreading out risk, and in a legitimate insurance system, it normally works. The problem with Social Security is not the existence of what you call “little old white ladies”, but the fundamentally fraudulent, unsound approach of using the money currently being paid in to pay current benefits, instead of pooling and investing the money and paying it out to those, among the ones who paid it in, who meet the criteria.”
This is incoherent prattle. Social Security is insurance and is run as such. In any insurance pool, some will collect (who meet the criteria) and some will not (who don’t meet the criteria).
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
9:17 am
“Meaning you’d been lying awake, sick with worry over whether I really cared about this or that oppressed individual or group, heretofore?”
Nothing that dramatic (not even sure how you imagined it would be). I meant I will pay them no heed should I read them
“Because, sure–pointing out hypocrisy in others is good, clean family fun; we all do it. But I never really care all that much for it as a deal-maker argument.”
We are all of us hypocrites to some extent. There is only one difference between people in this regard: those who change when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them and those who don’t. I don’t take financial advice from someone who has gone bankrupt. I take the same approach to politicians – if their own house is not in order, how can I expect them to put our nation’s house in order? Sadly, few politicians come to the fore whose house is in order and we are left (almost always) with a choice of the lesser evils.
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:18 am
Jay
The GOP plans to “fix” SS are not based on reality because they don’t want it to be “fixed”. As history has shown, they have fought SS since it’s inception. They throw out plans that only sound good to their constituents, who they know don’t care about the facts, just good sounding “sound bytes”. When you think about it…the whole GOP agenda is not based on reality…just good sounding “sound bytes”. This is, after all, a party led by a radio talk show personality.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
9:21 am
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
Please explain what is causing the middle class to be decimated and what is causing their disparity with the upper class.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
9:24 am
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:18 am
Which political party took money out of social security to fund Obamacare and which political party cut social security funding within the last two years?
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:31 am
Holy cow, Righty.
AGAIN???
Are you serious???
How many times before it sinks in???
Read these posts of mine and get back with me.
AmVet
April 21st, 2011
9:24 pm
AmVet – Read my lips. No new Texans!
September 14th, 2011
6:24 pm
AmVet
October 25th, 2010
6:16 pm
(At Wingfield’s)
AmVet
June 28th, 2011
7:13 pm
AmVet
April 7th, 2010
3:31 pm