The average middle income earner isn't paying anywhere near a 25% effective tax rate. A couple earning $100,000 in taxable income, that's after deductions so their actual salary will be higher than this, is paying just over 17% in federal income taxes. Change that to $70,000 and they're under 14%. These couples are both in the 25% tax bracket, but only a portion of their income is being taxed at 25%. Most of it is 15%.
Which means that in order to be sustainable the retirement age for social security benefits should be raised to at least 70.
It's likely an expectations thing. I'm still young (34) and have no real expectations of ever seeing most of the money that I'm paying into Social security. Instead, I'm saving on my own to fully fund my own retirement. You grew up expecting SS to always be there. Different time periods with likely different results.
Social security taxes paid are most certainly NOT an investment. The taxes that you paid provided benefits to the current retirees. The taxes that the next genration pays will provide your benefits. Under no circumstances should it be considered an investment.
If it is truly a "security net" for the retirees then means testing it only makes sense.
Don't like it. I don't think a 10% tax would be enough and as Snook said, it'd be a killer on small businesses and lower income people, even the Flat Tax proponents have a deduction amount. The wealthly would love it though.
Agreed
First I've heard of this idea and I like it. I'd prefer to have a balanced budget amendment passed prior to this, but I'd go for it.
Not enough for many areas. Some should be cut in half or eliminated altogether.
I'll add to the disagreement. The US will not come close to crumbling. As credit becomes more difficult to obtain the citizens will have to get used to a lower standard of living. The gov't will also have to get used to less spending and/or higher taxes. I don't think that the majority of Americans will go for sustained higher taxes so less spending is more likely.
Now this likely will not happen until it is forced upon us, but we're FAR from crumbling. Even countries in significantly worse shape financially than the US are not going to be "finished" or "crumble".
Nope, because this says EXACTLY what I already said in my previous post. I see no reason to change my position now that you agree with me.
I bolded the important parts.
Nope. Gov't accounting is done using fund accounting and no reporting of numbers has changed that. The US gov't has operating funds, a social security fund, etc, etc. Money taken from one fund is not taken but borrowed. The borrowing is done by the SS fund purchasing T-Bills from the treasury with the excess money that the SS fund had. The money from the purchase of the T-bills then goes into the operating fund where it can be used on whatever they want. However, those T-Bills exist as assets in the SS fund and pay interest from the operating fund to the SS fund. Those assets (T-bills) can also be sold to other investors to gain the cash needed for the SS fund to pay it's obligations.
All of this is explained in the link I provided above. It's not explicitly stated, but the different phases are in there. Phase 1 (already past) SS receipts are greater than outlays. Phase 2 (from now until 2022) SS receipts are less than outlays but the interest income more than makes up the difference. Phase 3 (from 2022 -2036) SS receipts plus interest income are less than outlays and assets have to be sold to pay benefits. Phase 4 (2036) no assets remain and benefits can not be fully paid.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
From SSA itself,
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
So the Social Security Administration itself disagrees with you. The link above also covers Medicare deficits.
Also, the "removal" of the money has nothing to do with the projected deficits. In fact, Congress turning those funds into T-Bills actually helps the SS fund in that those T-bills pay interest to the SSA and that interest can be used to pay SS benefits.
I don't know that we're really in any disagreement with respect to the situation at hand. If we as a country want to continue on as we have been then tax increases will be required and NOT just for the wealthy. If instead we choose to provide less benefits and project our power less through the world then we can drastically shrink spending without increasing taxes. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle though.
As an example, if you want to make SS solvent again then you simply raise the retirement age to 70 and means test the benefits. If you want to leave the benefits as is then you must remove the cap on taxable SS wages. Leaving it as is, is not a viable option.
Rates have been close to this level since the 90's and total tax receipts have risen and fallen with employment. Under these same "low taxes" the IRS collected over 5 trillion in 2007.
My point is that getting people back to work (through private industry and not gov't spending) will be the biggest driver to increasing total tax receipts.
I do agree with you in that if the US needs to be more responsible in it's budgeting. If the gov't wants to continue to fight expensive wars then THIS gov't should be the one to pay for it and not foist the problem onto future generations. This goes along with every other un/underfunded program that we have (SS retirement, Medicare, etc, etc).
This is a prime example of using statistics to fit your view. Tax receipts are at their lowest point true, but tax rates are not. Tax receipts are low mainly due to extremely high un/underemployment rates and has little to do with actual tax rates.
He's also talking about marginal tax rate and not effective tax rate. The secretary may be paying a 30 some % marginal tax rate (that would be one WELL paid secretary though, single income in the 170's), but that person's effective rate is much lower. Also, if Buffet was so concerned about this injustice then he'd stop taking his income as capital gains and set it up so that it was actual income. He'd pay a MUCH higher effective rate then. Also, he's free to send in extra to the Fed. They aren't going to send it back unless you ask for it.
And then remits that interest back to the federal gov't. Look up the Federal Reserve financial statements, they're online for anyone to see. You'll learn something new.
If the top of the senko is sliding down the hook and causing your problem then take some toothpicks with you and push the toothpick through the senko and the eye of the hook and then break it off. It will hold the senko and keep it from sliding down the hook. Or use a twist lock hook or get some parasite clips.
http://parasiteweights.com/store/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=30
It works, but it's not foolproof.
First you need to be around actively feeding bass. Then you've got to manage your bait (gill) so that it doesn't hide too well where the bass can't get it. The hardest part that I've run into is figuring out the best way to rig it up. Need to do so in a way that keeps the gill alive and active while actually hooking up with the bass when she finally attacks.
Just this weekend I was fishing with my kids for bluegill at my father in law's pond. We were using those little 2 foot poles and I had a few bass eat the gill that we caught. No real way to hook the bass though. It WAS exciting watching the bass hunt the hooked gill though. One second it's there and then the next the bass is trying to swallow it. Awesome.
It's not like that where I live. They rarely sound the sirens and when they do you know it's a bad storm.
I was in Memphis last month and they seemed to do things differently. The sirens were going off constantly and no one really cared. From what I understand they turn them on by county and not localized areas.
They love the stuff though and they'll eat it up!!! Fresh liver is the best catfish bait that I've used. The caveat is that I've never had the stomach to make stink bait.
You do realize that a percentage of fish that you catch and release die anyways right? If you hate bow fishing because it kills fish then logically you should hate ALL fishing, even catch and release, because it kills fish.
Me, I'm not so concerned about a single fish as to worry about it. It's a fish, there are millions of them. Plus they taste really good too!
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.
