Baby boomers are what's wrong with America's economy

[[DHT]Osiris]

Noted. To clarify what I meant; A flat tax gives a regressive outcome. Due to poorer people needing to spend a larger portion of their income to live (up to 100%+). While richer people lower portion on necessities since it's limited how much to can/need to spend on food and housing. Taking an even percent from each group has worse effects on the life quality of the poorer people

Could always flat tax past $XX,XXX/yr, increasing with inflation or whatever.

 

[ivwshane]

wouldn't those hundreds of thousands be income?

Not according to your definition.

 

[Thebobo]

This blaming the next generation has been going on since antiquity:

Socrates was quoted as saying:
"The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."

Skin tone vs Skin tone
South vs North
Old vs Young
Left vs Right
Poor vs Rich
Believers vs Non Believers
Smart vs dumb
Dog vs Cat
On and on vs on and on.

It's the same argument, just plug in who to blame for your lot in life.

 

[crashtech]

Noted. To clarify what I meant; A flat tax gives a regressive outcome. Due to poorer people needing to spend a larger portion of their income to live (up to 100%+). While richer people lower portion on necessities since it's limited how much to can/need to spend on food and housing. Taking an even percent from each group has worse effects on the life quality of the poorer people

I'm grateful that we can at least agree on the language, though I think that talking about outcomes can be a bit difficult, since outcomes depend on the individual, their location, etc. Not to say I don't take your meaning, which is why I agree that some progressivity in taxation is desirable. I think moving toward a simpler tax structure where high-earners can no longer find loopholes to avoid paying would be a good first step. If exemptions and loopholes at the high-end were eliminated, rates could fall but the actual tax collected on the highest earners would increase, that was what I meant with my original comment about how progressive the rates need to be. I don't think we should be entertaining tax cuts at this time anyway; the Republicans are out of touch with the concerns of regular citizens. The middle class is only paying an effective rate of 2.5% at this time.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-dont-want-or-need-a-tax-cut-2017-09-27

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm grateful that we can at least agree on the language, though I think that talking about outcomes can be a bit difficult, since outcomes depend on the individual, their location, etc. Not to say I don't take your meaning, which is why I agree that some progressivity in taxation is desirable. I think moving toward a simpler tax structure where high-earners can no longer find loopholes to avoid paying would be a good first step. If exemptions and loopholes at the high-end were eliminated, rates could fall but the actual tax collected on the highest earners would increase, that was what I meant with my original comment about how progressive the rates need to be. I don't think we should be entertaining tax cuts at this time anyway; the Republicans are out of touch with the concerns of regular citizens. The middle class is only paying an effective rate of 2.5% at this time.

That last bit is false. table 8-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

Check out table 5 where it shows that the share of national income going to the bottom 75% since 1980 fell by a quarter & was transferred to the top 1% whose share more than doubled.

Rich people don't get their money in wages, anyway, but rather thru investment which is taxed at a helluva lot lower rate than top marginal 39.5 % of top wage earners. Remember Mitt? He paid 14% along with a lot of people making an order of magnitude less money.

 

[ivwshane]

Skin tone vs Skin tone
South vs North
Old vs Young
Left vs Right
Poor vs Rich
Believers vs Non Believers
Smart vs dumb
Dog vs Cat
On and on vs on and on.

It's the same argument, just plug in who to blame for your lot in life.

Or make a list of false equivalences.

 

[sdifox]

Not according to your definition.

What do you mean? Capital gain is income.

 

[sdifox]

That last bit is false. table 8-

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

Check out table 5 where it shows that the share of national income going to the bottom 75% since 1980 fell by a quarter & was transferred to the top 1% whose share more than doubled.

Rich people don't get their money in wages, anyway, but rather thru investment which is taxed at a helluva lot lower rate than top marginal 39.5 % of top wage earners. Remember Mitt? He paid 14% along with a lot of people making an order of magnitude less money.

And that is why I said all income are treated equally. I don't care how you made it.

 

[ivwshane]

What do you mean? Capital gain is income.

No its not, its treated differently which is why I asked you.

 

[werepossum]

LOL. Another crying thread about how the Boomers ruined the entire planet and lives of all that came after them. What a load of tripe. Spoiled brats.

Yup. Once again, someone has trotted out "Reason 21,715 why I am entitled to free shit."

 

[sdifox]

No its not, its treated differently which is why I asked you.

And I am saying no exemptions, no special rules, income is income.

 

[Thebobo]

Or make a list of false equivalences.

Ok, ok you can scratch cat vs dog off the list.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup. Once again, someone has trotted out "Reason 21,715 why I am entitled to free shit."

Haha, I like how you see a thread with people talking about how boomers will get far, far more out of social security and Medicare than they paid in and say to yourself ‘man, other people just want free shit’.

Totally unaware of the irony. It’s great.

 

[pcgeek11]

SS isn't free shit, I've been paying into it since I was 16 years old ( that is 47 years ). The deal with SS was cut years ago it wasn't a choice. It was you pay in XX amount and the government will pay you XX amount when you retire. Granted the government was not a very good custodian and raped the SS Funds over the years. That was not our fault, If you don't like it work to change it. You need to place the blame where it belongs, instead of whining on the internet.

 

[fskimospy]

The deal with SS was cut years ago it wasn't a choice. It was you pay in XX amount and the government will pay you XX amount when you retire.

So how about the government just pays you back what you paid in along with some interest? Otherwise how is this anything other than you asking for free shit?

EDIT: Same with Medicare, but to an even greater extent. Let's just give you back what you paid in and you can purchase your own medical insurance. Otherwise, more free shit.

Granted the government was not a very good custodian and raped the SS Funds over the years. That was not our fault, If you don't like it work to change it. You need to place the blame where it belongs, instead of whining on the internet.

This is a common misconception about how social security works. It was not possible to 'rape' or 'raid' the social security fund in the past and even it it were it would have no effect on what we could pay out in the future. The 'trust fund' is in Treasury bills. What are treasury bills? Loans to the government. So what's the SS fund? Money the government owes itself. For each and every year we have the sum total of production that the US creates to care for its citizens. Making accounting fictions about trust funds does nothing to change that, it only serves to make policy choices sound like fiscal requirements.

 

[Puffnstuff]

I believe that FICA collections should only be used by SS for legal entitlement payments and not for any other purpose. I also believe that there should be a records audit to identify and remove any illegal beneficiaries from the system. I studied this system in my human resources classes and agree with the reasoning behind its creation so we don't have a repeat of the great depression. I have a lot of respect for FDR, Senator Robert Wagner and his aide Francis Perkins for their hard work during this era to help the citizens of this country.

 

[pcgeek11]

So how about the government just pays you back what you paid in along with some interest? Otherwise how is this anything other than you asking for free shit?

EDIT: Same with Medicare, but to an even greater extent. Let's just give you back what you paid in and you can purchase your own medical insurance. Otherwise, more free shit.



This is a common misconception about how social security works. It was not possible to 'rape' or 'raid' the social security fund in the past and even it it were it would have no effect on what we could pay out in the future. The 'trust fund' is in Treasury bills. What are treasury bills? Loans to the government. So what's the SS fund? Money the government owes itself. For each and every year we have the sum total of production that the US creates to care for its citizens. Making accounting fictions about trust funds does nothing to change that, it only serves to make policy choices sound like fiscal requirements.

No. I'm only asking for what was offered in the deal made long ago. Nothing more or nothing less.

If you loan me 1,000 dollars and I agree to pay you back 2,000 dollars after a year. What about I just pay you the 1,000 I borrowed with a little interest say 1,100 dollars. Would you accept that?

 

[fskimospy]

No. I'm only asking for what was offered in the deal made long ago. Nothing more or nothing less.

If you loan me 1,000 dollars and I agree to pay you back 2,000 dollars after a year. What about I just pay you the 1,000 I borrowed with a little interest say 1,100 dollars. Would you accept that?

Right, someone promised you a bunch of free shit in the past and you want it. That's totally fair, by the way, I am a big supporter of social security. Let's not pretend it is something other than it is though, which is the older generation getting a large subsidy from the next one.

By your logic I assume you oppose any and all benefit cuts for future generations when it comes to SS and Medicare. Is that correct? After all, that's the deal they've paid into.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

SS isn't free shit, I've been paying into it since I was 16 years old ( that is 47 years ). The deal with SS was cut years ago it wasn't a choice. It was you pay in XX amount and the government will pay you XX amount when you retire. Granted the government was not a very good custodian and raped the SS Funds over the years. That was not our fault, If you don't like it work to change it. You need to place the blame where it belongs, instead of whining on the internet.

Technically, you were paying for those who were getting SS at the time, and when you retire (if you aren't already), others will be paying for you. It's more like a ponzi scheme that nobody was able to opt out of, and everyone's hoping will somehow continue.

 

[pcgeek11]

Right, someone promised you a bunch of free shit in the past and you want it. That's totally fair, by the way, I am a big supporter of social security. Let's not pretend it is something other than it is though, which is the older generation getting a large subsidy from the next one.

By your logic I assume you oppose any and all benefit cuts for future generations when it comes to SS and Medicare. Is that correct? After all, that's the deal they've paid into.

I paid, there is no free shit. It is interest on what was paid by me over the last 47 years.

I do appose any changes for those that are currently participating in the SS System ( as in paying into it or receiving legal benefits ). As for future generations ... There could be room for improvements...

So would you accept the 1,100 dollars instead of the 2,000 promised?

 

[pcgeek11]

Technically, you were paying for those who were getting SS at the time, and when you retire (if you aren't already), others will be paying for you. It's more like a ponzi scheme that nobody was able to opt out of, and everyone's hoping will somehow continue.

Technically you are correct.

 

[fskimospy]

I paid, there is no free shit. It is interest on what was paid by me over the last 47 years.

I do appose any changes for those that are currently participating in the SS System ( as in paying into it or receiving legal benefits ). As for future generations ... There could be room for improvements...

So guaranteed interest far in excess of any return you could expect elsewhere isn't free shit. Hokay. I am genuinely baffled why people feel the need to jump through these kinds of intellectual hoops to convince themselves that the government benefits they get are rightly deserved and only the bad other people get free shit.

It's okay to benefit from government programs, you realize this, right? I'm okay with paying you more than you paid in because I believe the system is valuable. I'm also okay with paying more in taxes than I get back in services because similarly, the society those taxes enable is valuable. Why can't you just admit that?

 

[fskimospy]

Technically, you were paying for those who were getting SS at the time, and when you retire (if you aren't already), others will be paying for you. It's more like a ponzi scheme that nobody was able to opt out of, and everyone's hoping will somehow continue.

It's definitely not like a Ponzi scheme in any way, shape, or form. It's a pay as you go system, which there are zillions of all over the world.

First, Ponzi schemes are frauds because their investors aren't told what's going on, unlike social security. Second, Ponzi schemes are inherently unsustainable because they require an ever increasing number of participants and there's no way around that. Social Security does not depend on an exponentially growing base of people to be sustainable, it just means the taxes and benefits have to be changed over time to comport with demographics.

 

[pcgeek11]

So guaranteed interest far in excess of any return you could expect elsewhere isn't free shit. Hokay. I am genuinely baffled why people feel the need to jump through these kinds of intellectual hoops to convince themselves that the government benefits they get are rightly deserved and only the bad other people get free shit.

It's okay to benefit from government programs, you realize this, right? I'm okay with paying you more than you paid in because I believe the system is valuable. I'm also okay with paying more in taxes than I get back in services because similarly, the society those taxes enable is valuable. Why can't you just admit that?

It isn't free shit it is interest on the Government using my money for over 47 years. I'm not jumping through any hoops, this was a deal designed by the Government that I had no choice in.

Where did I say that only bad people get free shit?

 

[fskimospy]

It isn't free shit it is interest on the Government using my money for over 47 years. I'm not jumping through any hoops, this was a deal designed by the Government that I had no choice in.

Where did I say that only bad people get free shit?

Do you think the average boomer could have gotten a similar return on investment without a government guarantee? If not, that's 100% free shit.

I mean if the government passed a law today that said 'fskimospy gets a guaranteed 25% interest rate on all investments he makes for the rest of his life' is that just fair interest I'm getting from the government or is that the government giving me money? I think we both know it's free money.

As far as good people or bad people, what I meant was that people don't like to view the benefits they receive as being 'free' or somehow undeserved, even if they benefit enormously. They are far more willing to see that in others.