QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 08:14 PM)
[right][snapback]81529[/snapback][/right]
the laws should be written in plain english and not with the intent of loopholes
Full Version: Social Security, Medicare and Aging
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106
[right][snapback]81529[/snapback][/right]
the laws should be written in plain english and not with the intent of loopholes
We have a number of wealthy corporations in the community. When they set-up a pay schedule for medical care for their workers/labor the medical Drs then raise their rates. The medical Plan/Pay for the salaried shoes is different, more or less, amounting to a ‘private pay insurance program’.
However, the workers who do not work for the higher pay scale employers medical payment to the Drs. goes up. The hospital and Drs. then base their fees on what the wealthy corporations will pay….. Medicare and Medicaid payments are based on those figures….
A possible solution for the individual states would be to take the high insurance paid premiums as well as the low… throw those numbers out, then rate the Medicare/Medicaid payments from the average of those in the middle.
Then… that would be the amount the Drs and the hospitals could charge for people on said programs.
Face it the medical professionals today will experiment on us regardless of race, color or creed.
However, the workers who do not work for the higher pay scale employers medical payment to the Drs. goes up. The hospital and Drs. then base their fees on what the wealthy corporations will pay….. Medicare and Medicaid payments are based on those figures….
A possible solution for the individual states would be to take the high insurance paid premiums as well as the low… throw those numbers out, then rate the Medicare/Medicaid payments from the average of those in the middle.
Then… that would be the amount the Drs and the hospitals could charge for people on said programs.
Face it the medical professionals today will experiment on us regardless of race, color or creed.
QUOTE(csh @ May 6 2005, 03:36 PM)
Face it the medical professionals today will experiment on us regardless of race, color or creed.
[right][snapback]81548[/snapback][/right]
Growing a tail could be useful.
or money
QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 03:14 PM)
[right][snapback]81529[/snapback][/right]
Intellectualus gigantus mantis.
QUOTE(csh @ May 6 2005, 06:36 PM)
We have a number of wealthy corporations in the community. When they set-up a pay schedule for medical care for their workers/labor the medical Drs then raise their rates. The medical Plan/Pay for the salaried shoes is different, more or less, amounting to a ‘private pay insurance program’.
However, the workers who do not work for the higher pay scale employers medical payment to the Drs. goes up. The hospital and Drs. then base their fees on what the wealthy corporations will pay….. Medicare and Medicaid payments are based on those figures….
A possible solution for the individual states would be to take the high insurance paid premiums as well as the low… throw those numbers out, then rate the Medicare/Medicaid payments from the average of those in the middle.
Then… that would be the amount the Drs and the hospitals could charge for people on said programs.
Face it the medical professionals today will experiment on us regardless of race, color or creed.
[right][snapback]81548[/snapback][/right]
However, the workers who do not work for the higher pay scale employers medical payment to the Drs. goes up. The hospital and Drs. then base their fees on what the wealthy corporations will pay….. Medicare and Medicaid payments are based on those figures….
A possible solution for the individual states would be to take the high insurance paid premiums as well as the low… throw those numbers out, then rate the Medicare/Medicaid payments from the average of those in the middle.
Then… that would be the amount the Drs and the hospitals could charge for people on said programs.
Face it the medical professionals today will experiment on us regardless of race, color or creed.
[right][snapback]81548[/snapback][/right]
I wouldn't be too sure that Medicare isn't the tail waging this dog.
QUOTE(arebuntz @ May 6 2005, 05:49 PM)
I wouldn't be too sure that Medicare isn't the tail waging this dog.
[right][snapback]81554[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81554[/snapback][/right]
According to the docs I've talked to, it is.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ May 6 2005, 06:50 PM)
According to the docs I've talked to, it is.
[right][snapback]81556[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81556[/snapback][/right]
And they likely deny more payment for service than any health care finance entity too.
QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 02:55 PM)
[right][snapback]81560[/snapback][/right]
God I hope he wore a condom.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ May 6 2005, 06:56 PM)
God I hope he wore a condom.
[right][snapback]81561[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81561[/snapback][/right]
He's waggin the dog.
QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 02:57 PM)
He's waggin the dog.
[right][snapback]81562[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81562[/snapback][/right]
I wonder if Barney likes doin it bushie style?
QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 06:55 PM)
[right][snapback]81560[/snapback][/right]
Good metaphore for the current state of politics in DC. President represents the Rs, the dog represents the Ds.
Drunk woman in bar: I need someone to drive me home.
Drunk man in bar: Bend over, I'll drive you home.
QUOTE(arebuntz @ May 6 2005, 06:02 PM)
Good metaphore for the current state of politics in DC. President represents the Rs, the dog represents the Ds.
Drunk woman in bar: I need someone to drive me home.
Drunk man in bar: Bend over, I'll drive you home.
[right][snapback]81567[/snapback][/right]
Drunk woman in bar: I need someone to drive me home.
Drunk man in bar: Bend over, I'll drive you home.
[right][snapback]81567[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(arebuntz @ May 6 2005, 03:02 PM)
Good metaphore for the current state of politics in DC. President represents the Rs, the dog represents the Ds.
Drunk woman in bar: I need someone to drive me home.
Drunk man in bar: Bend over, I'll drive you home.
[right][snapback]81567[/snapback][/right]
Drunk woman in bar: I need someone to drive me home.
Drunk man in bar: Bend over, I'll drive you home.
[right][snapback]81567[/snapback][/right]
As if ya gotta be a "D" to take it up the ass from this gang of thugs.
QUOTE(Mizilus @ May 6 2005, 07:03 PM)
As if ya gotta be a "D" to take it up the ass from this gang of thugs.
[right][snapback]81570[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81570[/snapback][/right]
They're just used to it.
Well, they did say on the news this morning
that he was going to "leave his mark" on this current trip.
that he was going to "leave his mark" on this current trip.
Dude, first they had to bend their mindless followers over to get their support. If that wasnt first-class hand-job foreplay nothing was.
Now the "D's" independants, greens, I®aqi's, American soldiers etc etc (not necessarily in that order) are takin it up the ass.
Now the "D's" independants, greens, I®aqi's, American soldiers etc etc (not necessarily in that order) are takin it up the ass.
Such metaphors! 
QUOTE(SpeedRacerXxtreme @ May 6 2005, 08:54 AM)
You certainly don't act like you're aware. You rephrase very simple concepts poorly and needlessly complicate theoretical answers that are probably politically impossible. I suppose I can stomach your verbose little lecture on doing gender, but on this board there are others that look to me like they know a lot more than you do at all levels.
[right][snapback]81463[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81463[/snapback][/right]
I apologize for the verbose lecture on doing gender. It didn't appear to me as if you were getting the gist of it, so I went into 'overdrive'. Wearing saran-wrap and the rest of it was probably humor which I, sadly, missed. B.K. has pointed out that I sometimes miss some quite funny turns of phrase and get all insulted and stuff with no reason.
I would appreciate it if you were to point out those very simple concepts which I have rephrased poorly. My 'theoretical answers' in this area are often in line (amazing, but true) with arebuntz and a.v. (when we all get down to 'now what?') 'Politically impossible' is probably too strong of a term. I do concede that 'paper plans' and actual plans are two different things.
Aren't we in agreement, btw, that the burden of supporting seniors and survivors and disabled should fall a bit more evenly on all, rather than only on the middle-class's earnings from work?
I still do not know, in all honesty and without desire for recrimination, what it is that you think I do not know in this area. If you're right, then I want to learn it. I dislike talking about stuff that I know little about.
BTW, I am moved by smerf's 'defense' but it was completely unnecessary. Please, do not treat him any worse on account of his having come to my defense with a bit too much youthful enthusiasm and an excess of zeal.
QUOTE(smerf @ May 6 2005, 09:08 AM)
it is pathetic how you must insult one of the few intelligent people on this board by putting yourself at a higher position than he. you should look around at what these people are saying, and if you had half the mind you imply that you do, you'd realize that the people you look to that "know a lot more at all levels" are really just hollow shells of discarded anger and misconception.
with that recent posting, you have just proven to me and to a deal of others that you aren't worth your two grains of salt to argue with, so i will discontinue my effort to try to bring meaning to your dismal attempt to discredit someone on this board. you shouldn't talk "smack" about people you haven't gotten the chance to know.
[right][snapback]81470[/snapback][/right]
with that recent posting, you have just proven to me and to a deal of others that you aren't worth your two grains of salt to argue with, so i will discontinue my effort to try to bring meaning to your dismal attempt to discredit someone on this board. you shouldn't talk "smack" about people you haven't gotten the chance to know.
[right][snapback]81470[/snapback][/right]
No need for that, 'smerf'. It's all good. Misunderstandings happen, and I am not that thin-skinned. I do not want you to ostracize anyone or to be ostracized yourself.
SRX and I will, hopefully, work things out and be able to discuss and debate issues again, soon.
QUOTE
The increase in compensation for Social Security beneficiaries between 1970 and today has come not from increases in productivity, but from increases in taxation, because OASDI taxes are income capped wage taxes and the increases in productivity in America since the 1970s have not been reflected in the incomes of ordinary working class Americans, who are the base of the Social Security system.
This is the real root source of the problem, it is the fact that a smaller and smaller portion of national income, i.e. what is produced, is actually subject to Social Security taxes because average workers are receiving a smaller and smaller share of the national income pie. This is why Social Security taxes have had to increase so much to pay benefits, even while productivity has dramatically improved over the years.
This is the real root source of the problem, it is the fact that a smaller and smaller portion of national income, i.e. what is produced, is actually subject to Social Security taxes because average workers are receiving a smaller and smaller share of the national income pie. This is why Social Security taxes have had to increase so much to pay benefits, even while productivity has dramatically improved over the years.
QUOTE
Wearing saran-wrap and the rest of it was probably humor which I, sadly, missed.
No no no no no. Do not wear saran wrap. That is not for boys.
Nice post.
QUOTE
In terms of a national investment system, I am in favor of such a program, however I think that it should be separate from Social Security. We should create a new national investment system, and not privatize the OASI portion of Social Security because it is filling the role that it is intended to fill, Social Security. Keyword security. What should definitely be done is that benefit increases should be based on either the rate of inflation or on median wages, instead of on the Average Wage Index. What could also be done, is that the cap on the OASDI taxes could be removed without increasing the maximum benefit payments to compensate. If this were done the overall OASDI tax rates could also be reduced. At the very least the DI portion of the OASDI tax should have its cap removed. This would make the DI program solvent beyond the term of current projections at least, if not indefinitely, and the DI program is a program that supports disabled citizens. Surely caring for this group should not be the sole responsibility of the middle class.
The problem with the idea of partial privatization of Social Security is that it does not address the root causes of the problems. The OASI fund is the most economically sound fund. The funds with the biggest problems are the HI and SMI funds. These funds, the Medicare funds, face immediate problems and privatization in no way addresses these problems. Medicare reform and healthcare reform are much more important than retirement benefit reform, and it was the Bush administration that failed to support the best opportunity to control costs within Medicare that has come along in a long time, and that was when Bush signed the Medicare reform bill in 2004 that forbids Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug prices.
Furthermore, the projected distant future shortfall for the OASI fund is a product of a flaw in how benefit increases are calculated that is exacerbated by an underlying problem of the country, which is that income disparity is increasing and the middle class is being increasingly squeezed economically. This, of course, impacts the ability of the middle class to pay for the support of retirees.
The fact of the matter is that in a nation of increasing productivity there should be no need to extend the working time of citizens, or to increase tax rates, or to cut benefits in order to pay for the needs of retired workers and the disabled, even with a decreasing ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
It is fallacious to say that as a society "we" can't afford to maintain retirement benefits. The fact is that "we" can, but the middle class cannot. "We" can afford to pay basketball players millions of dollars a year to play games. "We" could afford to spend $11.2 billion on cigarette advertising in 2001. "We" could afford to compensate the CEOs of the 365 largest companies an average of $8.1 million each in 2003.
It's not as though "we" can't afford to care for our elderly and disabled, its a matter of our priorities as a society however. When we say that "we" can't afford Social Security, what we are saying is that professional athletes receiving millions of dollars a year are more important to us than retirees.
If that's where people's values are, then that's where they are, but let's not pretend as though this is the result of an acute funding crisis; the problems with Social Security are a reflection of the problems within our entire society. The real solution for fixing Social Security is to fix the underlying problems.
The problem with the idea of partial privatization of Social Security is that it does not address the root causes of the problems. The OASI fund is the most economically sound fund. The funds with the biggest problems are the HI and SMI funds. These funds, the Medicare funds, face immediate problems and privatization in no way addresses these problems. Medicare reform and healthcare reform are much more important than retirement benefit reform, and it was the Bush administration that failed to support the best opportunity to control costs within Medicare that has come along in a long time, and that was when Bush signed the Medicare reform bill in 2004 that forbids Medicare from negotiating lower prescription drug prices.
Furthermore, the projected distant future shortfall for the OASI fund is a product of a flaw in how benefit increases are calculated that is exacerbated by an underlying problem of the country, which is that income disparity is increasing and the middle class is being increasingly squeezed economically. This, of course, impacts the ability of the middle class to pay for the support of retirees.
The fact of the matter is that in a nation of increasing productivity there should be no need to extend the working time of citizens, or to increase tax rates, or to cut benefits in order to pay for the needs of retired workers and the disabled, even with a decreasing ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
It is fallacious to say that as a society "we" can't afford to maintain retirement benefits. The fact is that "we" can, but the middle class cannot. "We" can afford to pay basketball players millions of dollars a year to play games. "We" could afford to spend $11.2 billion on cigarette advertising in 2001. "We" could afford to compensate the CEOs of the 365 largest companies an average of $8.1 million each in 2003.
It's not as though "we" can't afford to care for our elderly and disabled, its a matter of our priorities as a society however. When we say that "we" can't afford Social Security, what we are saying is that professional athletes receiving millions of dollars a year are more important to us than retirees.
If that's where people's values are, then that's where they are, but let's not pretend as though this is the result of an acute funding crisis; the problems with Social Security are a reflection of the problems within our entire society. The real solution for fixing Social Security is to fix the underlying problems.
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 6 2005, 04:11 PM)
No no no no no. Do not wear saran wrap. That is not for boys.
Nice post.
[right][snapback]81607[/snapback][/right]
Nice post.
[right][snapback]81607[/snapback][/right]
Phew, gee thanks, lady!
LOL LOL LOL
Thanks for the 'nice post'.
QUOTE
[T]here has been a 10% increase in the difference between the average and median wage since 1974.
This is a problem because of the wage cap. The high incomes at the top end of the pay scale have pulled the level of scheduled benefits up, but those high incomes are not taxed by the Social Security system, so we have benefits going out that are adjusted by a different factor than what is used to bring payments in. In short, the middle class and poor are being called on to meet the spending requirements set by the wealthy.
I have not yet heard anyone explicitly address this issue. I did not understand it completely until just now. I understood that wage disparity and the wage cap were problems, but I wasn't sure exactly in what way it was causing the problem.
Now that the problem has been defined, solutions become quite easy.
Of course I will continue to contend that wage disparity is the real problem in the first place, but I'll assume that fixing wage disparity is beyond the scope of fixing Social Security. Therefore, there are various ways to fix this specific problem, which would also fix the Social Security problem as it exists today in general. The following are independent steps that could be taken to solve the problem:
Base the benefit adjustment schedule on inflation indexing instead of wage indexing
Base the wage index on median wages instead of average wages
Remove the wage cap completely
Doing any one of these things should alleviate the problem, while Bush's privatization plan actually makes the problem worse.
The problem actually exists in the way that benefits have been calculated since the 1970s, but it has become more noticable with time because of the massive increases in wage disparity. This problem would actually exist with or without the baby boom generation. Wage discrepancy, and a calculation that doesn't take wage discrepancy into consideration, is the source of the problem. The reason that it wasn't an issue in the past is because there was lower wage discrepancy in the 1940s-1970s.
In fact, I now argue that the middle-class and poor have been significantly over taxed since 1983, when the payroll tax was overhauled, due to this calculation error, which is exactly what this is, an error. Regardless of whatever else is done, this error HAS to be corrected. It's like a bug in a computer program; it is a flaw pure and simple. We have, as far as I am concerned, been overpaying beneficiaries for the past 10-20 years and are currently scheduled to continue doing so. The amount of overpayment has probably been small thus far, I would guess a matter of less than $100 per check, but with so many checks it all adds up.
The working-class, with 30+ years of stagnant wages, cannot continue to pay a tax based on the rise in wages for the top 10% of wage receivers. Of course, the best solution here would be for the working-class to fight for increased wages in the first place and for wage disparity to be reduced, but we can't wait that long to fix this problem, which is actually the product of a flawed algorithm.
What could be the very best solution overall would be to eliminate the wage cap and change over to using median wage indexing. This should both make the system indefin[i]tely solvent, and actually provide enough of a boon to allow the OASDI tax to be reduced by 1% to 2%. There is your "privatization", just reduce the tax and let people keep more of their money in the first place.
This is a problem because of the wage cap. The high incomes at the top end of the pay scale have pulled the level of scheduled benefits up, but those high incomes are not taxed by the Social Security system, so we have benefits going out that are adjusted by a different factor than what is used to bring payments in. In short, the middle class and poor are being called on to meet the spending requirements set by the wealthy.
I have not yet heard anyone explicitly address this issue. I did not understand it completely until just now. I understood that wage disparity and the wage cap were problems, but I wasn't sure exactly in what way it was causing the problem.
Now that the problem has been defined, solutions become quite easy.
Of course I will continue to contend that wage disparity is the real problem in the first place, but I'll assume that fixing wage disparity is beyond the scope of fixing Social Security. Therefore, there are various ways to fix this specific problem, which would also fix the Social Security problem as it exists today in general. The following are independent steps that could be taken to solve the problem:
Base the benefit adjustment schedule on inflation indexing instead of wage indexing
Base the wage index on median wages instead of average wages
Remove the wage cap completely
Doing any one of these things should alleviate the problem, while Bush's privatization plan actually makes the problem worse.
The problem actually exists in the way that benefits have been calculated since the 1970s, but it has become more noticable with time because of the massive increases in wage disparity. This problem would actually exist with or without the baby boom generation. Wage discrepancy, and a calculation that doesn't take wage discrepancy into consideration, is the source of the problem. The reason that it wasn't an issue in the past is because there was lower wage discrepancy in the 1940s-1970s.
In fact, I now argue that the middle-class and poor have been significantly over taxed since 1983, when the payroll tax was overhauled, due to this calculation error, which is exactly what this is, an error. Regardless of whatever else is done, this error HAS to be corrected. It's like a bug in a computer program; it is a flaw pure and simple. We have, as far as I am concerned, been overpaying beneficiaries for the past 10-20 years and are currently scheduled to continue doing so. The amount of overpayment has probably been small thus far, I would guess a matter of less than $100 per check, but with so many checks it all adds up.
The working-class, with 30+ years of stagnant wages, cannot continue to pay a tax based on the rise in wages for the top 10% of wage receivers. Of course, the best solution here would be for the working-class to fight for increased wages in the first place and for wage disparity to be reduced, but we can't wait that long to fix this problem, which is actually the product of a flawed algorithm.
What could be the very best solution overall would be to eliminate the wage cap and change over to using median wage indexing. This should both make the system indefin[i]tely solvent, and actually provide enough of a boon to allow the OASDI tax to be reduced by 1% to 2%. There is your "privatization", just reduce the tax and let people keep more of their money in the first place.
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/blog...entry_id=647053
QUOTE
The reason that it wasn't an issue in the past is because there was lower wage discrepancy in the 1940s-1970s.
As opposed to the years 1971-2001?
Overall, I suppose. I know that wage discrepancy started to correct itself in the 1990s.
So....what happened to stop that correction?
Any ideas? Or should we all be unreasonbly reasonable?
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 06:31 PM)
[T]here has been a 10% increase in the difference between the average and median wage since 1974.
This is a problem because of the wage cap. The high incomes at the top end of the pay scale have pulled the level of scheduled benefits up, but those high incomes are not taxed by the Social Security system, so we have benefits going out that are adjusted by a different factor than what is used to bring payments in. In short, the middle class and poor are being called on to meet the spending requirements set by the wealthy.
I have not yet heard anyone explicitly address this issue. I did not understand it completely until just now. I understood that wage disparity and the wage cap were problems, but I wasn't sure exactly in what way it was causing the problem.
This is a problem because of the wage cap. The high incomes at the top end of the pay scale have pulled the level of scheduled benefits up, but those high incomes are not taxed by the Social Security system, so we have benefits going out that are adjusted by a different factor than what is used to bring payments in. In short, the middle class and poor are being called on to meet the spending requirements set by the wealthy.
I have not yet heard anyone explicitly address this issue. I did not understand it completely until just now. I understood that wage disparity and the wage cap were problems, but I wasn't sure exactly in what way it was causing the problem.
This is the first time I have considered this effect as well. Intuitively, the point makes sense. The question is how big is the effect? How much of the problem is created by this effect?
Still, it doesn’t help with the solution, unless high incomes included in the tax base too.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 05:08 PM)
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles...al_security.htm
Please read it.
[right][snapback]81605[/snapback][/right]
Please read it.
[right][snapback]81605[/snapback][/right]
that is a fabulous piece.
So we found one more variable. It certainly isn't the only thing that has changed since 74, and of course it doesn't solve anything.
Looks like the final solution was once again to raise taxes on somebody else. "Intuitively" I ought not care, but somehow it just goes against my grain to have raising taxes always be the first and only solution.
Looks like the final solution was once again to raise taxes on somebody else. "Intuitively" I ought not care, but somehow it just goes against my grain to have raising taxes always be the first and only solution.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ May 6 2005, 09:52 PM)
So we found one more variable. It certainly isn't the only thing that has changed since 74, and of course it doesn't solve anything.
Looks like the final solution was once again to raise taxes on somebody else. "Intuitively" I ought not care, but somehow it just goes against my grain to have raising taxes always be the first and only solution.
[right][snapback]81649[/snapback][/right]
Looks like the final solution was once again to raise taxes on somebody else. "Intuitively" I ought not care, but somehow it just goes against my grain to have raising taxes always be the first and only solution.
[right][snapback]81649[/snapback][/right]
Only fair solution.
The wealthy need to kick in their fair share.
a.v., I thought the end result would be a lowering of payroll tax rates, a reduction in the rate of growth of benefit increases to that of median wages, rather than that of average wages, and a lifting of the cap (actually, given the previous step, there's no need to lift the cap completely).
And, he did propose an additional 'national program' of 'personal accounts'.
And, he did propose an additional 'national program' of 'personal accounts'.
QUOTE(Bee @ May 6 2005, 06:58 PM)
Only fair solution.
The wealthy need to kick in their fair share.
[right][snapback]81659[/snapback][/right]
The wealthy need to kick in their fair share.
[right][snapback]81659[/snapback][/right]
I just love the use of a lot of subjective terms in economics.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ May 6 2005, 05:43 PM)
This is the first time I have considered this effect as well. Intuitively, the point makes sense. The question is how big is the effect? How much of the problem is created by this effect?
Still, it doesn’t help with the solution, unless high incomes included in the tax base too.
[right][snapback]81642[/snapback][/right]
Still, it doesn’t help with the solution, unless high incomes included in the tax base too.
[right][snapback]81642[/snapback][/right]
He gives a graph of the divergence of the average from the median wage.
He does propose lifting the earnings cap.
And he does propose using the growth in median wages to calculate future benefits increases/adjustments. If only income from work in the form of wages and salaries is to be in the tax base, then that's much fairer than using the CPI.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 07:31 PM)
a.v., I thought the end result would be a lowering of payroll tax rates, a reduction in the rate of growth of benefit increases to that of median wages, rather than that of average wages, and a lifting of the cap (actually, given the previous step, there's no need to lift the cap completely).
And, he did propose an additional 'national program' of 'personal accounts'.
[right][snapback]81690[/snapback][/right]
And, he did propose an additional 'national program' of 'personal accounts'.
[right][snapback]81690[/snapback][/right]
I didn't pay so much attention to the last, but the first three is what I took out.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 07:35 PM)
He gives a graph of the divergence of the average from the median wage.
He does propose lifting the earnings cap.
And he does propose using the growth in median wages to calculate future benefits increases/adjustments. If only income from work in the form of wages and salaries is to be in the tax base, then that's much fairer than using the CPI.
[right][snapback]81694[/snapback][/right]
He does propose lifting the earnings cap.
And he does propose using the growth in median wages to calculate future benefits increases/adjustments. If only income from work in the form of wages and salaries is to be in the tax base, then that's much fairer than using the CPI.
[right][snapback]81694[/snapback][/right]
He also gives as good an explanation and justification for the program as I've ever read. The guy is a very clear thinker and writer.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 07:31 PM)
a.v., I thought the end result would be a lowering of payroll tax rates, a reduction in the rate of growth of benefit increases to that of median wages, rather than that of average wages, and a lifting of the cap (actually, given the previous step, there's no need to lift the cap completely).
[right][snapback]81690[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81690[/snapback][/right]
Sure, if you raise taxes on everyone about a certain level you could lower the rate on everyone below. Just a matter of hammering out the details of who is going to have to pay how much for somebody elses retirement. I'm sure you could buy enough votes with the right bribe and a good sales pitch.
QUOTE
And, he did propose an additional 'national program' of 'personal accounts'.
Better to just leave all our cash in T-Bonds.
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ May 6 2005, 08:35 PM)
He gives a graph of the divergence of the average from the median wage.
He does propose lifting the earnings cap.
And he does propose using the growth in median wages to calculate future benefits increases/adjustments. If only income from work in the form of wages and salaries is to be in the tax base, then that's much fairer than using the CPI.
[right][snapback]81694[/snapback][/right]
He does propose lifting the earnings cap.
And he does propose using the growth in median wages to calculate future benefits increases/adjustments. If only income from work in the form of wages and salaries is to be in the tax base, then that's much fairer than using the CPI.
[right][snapback]81694[/snapback][/right]
Using all SS eligible wages would make sense for the index. It still would represent a "benefit cut" over the current computation, but that's what is needed, if increased taxes are not to be the only solution.
Who all read the piece?
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 6 2005, 07:42 PM)
Who all read the piece?
[right][snapback]81700[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81700[/snapback][/right]
I did, as well as looked at some of the links. Luntz is Goebbles? Nice variation on a theme.
Is he going to poison his children when the Dems close in on the White House?
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ May 6 2005, 07:49 PM)
I did, as well as looked at some of the links. Luntz is Goebbles? Nice variation on a theme.
Is he going to poison his children when the Dems close in on the White House?
[right][snapback]81708[/snapback][/right]
Is he going to poison his children when the Dems close in on the White House?
[right][snapback]81708[/snapback][/right]
Your reaction didn't shift at all from the usual. I found the information set out as to the reasons for shortages, and the changes in median income, income strata, and benefit assignment new.
What I was honestly shocked at, personally, was in having fallen for the radically changing worker-to-beneficiary ratio spiel .... all these years.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ May 6 2005, 08:49 PM)
I did, as well as looked at some of the links. Luntz is Goebbles? Nice variation on a theme.
[right][snapback]81708[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81708[/snapback][/right]
Luntz is surely one of the most effective propagandists since Goebbles.
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 6 2005, 10:54 PM)
Your reaction didn't shift at all from the usual. I found the information set out as to the reasons for shortages, and the changes in median income, income strata, and benefit assignment new.
What I was honestly shocked at, personally, was in having fallen for the radically changing worker-to-beneficiary ratio spiel .... all these years.
[right][snapback]81711[/snapback][/right]
What I was honestly shocked at, personally, was in having fallen for the radically changing worker-to-beneficiary ratio spiel .... all these years.
[right][snapback]81711[/snapback][/right]
Geoffy says the worker to beneficiary spiel will be 1.8 to 1 in the future.
Did you fall for that?
QUOTE(underhi2p @ May 6 2005, 07:59 PM)
Geoffy says the worker to beneficiary spiel will be 1.8 to 1 in the future.
Did you fall for that?
[right][snapback]81715[/snapback][/right]
Did you fall for that?
[right][snapback]81715[/snapback][/right]
Probably more than you fell for the income shift upwards that has left less of the national income subject to the tax.
What was new was that how new the 3-to-1 ratio wasn't.
QUOTE(lil bart @ May 6 2005, 07:54 PM)
Your reaction didn't shift at all from the usual. I found the information set out as to the reasons for shortages, and the changes in median income, income strata, and benefit assignment new.
What I was honestly shocked at, personally, was in having fallen for the radically changing worker-to-beneficiary ratio spiel .... all these years.
[right][snapback]81711[/snapback][/right]
What I was honestly shocked at, personally, was in having fallen for the radically changing worker-to-beneficiary ratio spiel .... all these years.
[right][snapback]81711[/snapback][/right]
The only thing that would shock me is if I changed my strategic thinking over a single article written above a link between a Republican pollster and a mass murderer.
The fact I take the time to read all the stuff lefties post here puts me ahead of all the lefties that merely complain about even having Ann Coulter or FOX mentioned in their presence.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ May 6 2005, 08:03 PM)
The only thing that would shock me is if I changed my strategic thinking over a single article written above a link between a Republican pollster and a mass murderer.
The fact I take the time to read all the stuff lefties post here puts me ahead of all the lefties that merely complain about even having Ann Coulter or FOX mentioned in their presence.
[right][snapback]81717[/snapback][/right]
The fact I take the time to read all the stuff lefties post here puts me ahead of all the lefties that merely complain about even having Ann Coulter or FOX mentioned in their presence.
[right][snapback]81717[/snapback][/right]
Maybe I liked it because I didn't have to change my strategic thinking; it got a boost. A big factual boost.
LOL
Yeah the ol "liburul bias" as if everyone isnt subject to illegitimate 24/7 reich wing propaganda garbage.
What achievements have they made in the history of the United States?
Yeah the ol "liburul bias" as if everyone isnt subject to illegitimate 24/7 reich wing propaganda garbage.
What achievements have they made in the history of the United States?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ May 6 2005, 07:58 PM)
Luntz is surely one of the most effective propagandists since Goebbles.
[right][snapback]81713[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]81713[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, millions hear him on the air all the time.
If Dems didn't have Nazis you might actually have to make points and defend them.
QUOTE
[T]he real root source of the problem, it is the fact that a smaller and smaller portion of national income, i.e. what is produced, is actually subject to Social Security taxes because average workers are receiving a smaller and smaller share of the national income pie. This is why Social Security taxes have had to increase so much to pay benefits, even while productivity has dramatically improved over the years.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.