FYI almost everyone will see a tax increase.

[Bowfinger]

Yes, but it is NOT proportional to your contributions. Someone who made 20,000 a year vs someone who made 40,000 a year adjusted for inflation. The person who made 40,000 would have put in twice as much, but will only get back 1500 vs the 1000 the 20,000 person would get, around 1.5 times as much only. In fact someone who makes 60,000 and contributed 3 times as much as someone who makes 20,000 would only get twice as much back and not 3 times.

It's still proportional, just not linearly proportional.

 

[highland145]

That's unfortunately the real concern here. I agree we should not have made the withholding cut in the first place. Simply bad policy, IMO. Unfortunately, the Obama administration did, and workers have become accustomed to those extra dollars in their paychecks. Given that the economy is still fragile, and recovery is tepid, we need people to keep spending. I'm concerned that suddenly smaller checks will cause people to cut way back and disproportionately hurt the economy.

The poor are already in the shitter. For a $50K/ year earner, it's $20/wk. Not a big deal, imo.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's unfortunately the real concern here. I agree we should not have made the withholding cut in the first place. Simply bad policy, IMO. Unfortunately, the Obama administration did, and workers have become accustomed to those extra dollars in their paychecks. Given that the economy is still fragile, and recovery is tepid, we need people to keep spending. I'm concerned that suddenly smaller checks will cause people to cut way back and disproportionately hurt the economy.

Of course, that's the no-win corner we've painted ourselves into. Our middle class jobs are now overseas, but we continued the illusion of prosperity by handing out borrowed money. That cannot continue indefinitely, but nobody wants to face the reality of paying our bills. Sooner or later we're screwed without a dramatic influx of good jobs.

I've suggested potential solutions before, but no one who has any influence and the partisans themselves don't want to listen. They'd rather burn the nation and "win".

 

[Bowfinger]

What's the annual cost of healthcare for a senior? This is a question involving facts and hard numbers instead of feelings and hand-wringing so I don't really expect an answer.

Dude, you're the guy who insists he has all the answers. You tell us. Support your assertions with actual data instead of hand waving and straw. Prove that it's "impossible to pay for". Your words.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The poor are already in the shitter. For a $50K/ year earner, it's $20/wk. Not a big deal, imo.

A thousand dollars a year isn't insignificant when the amount of discretionary spending is low.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dude, you're the guy who insists he has all the answers. You tell us. Support your assertions with actual data instead of hand waving and straw. Prove that it's "impossible to pay for". Your words.

The solution is to push people who are above a certain age off the planet into the ground. That "dead wood" younger people complain about you know.

 

[Bowfinger]

The poor are already in the shitter. For a $50K/ year earner, it's $20/wk. Not a big deal, imo.

I hope you're right, but I think you underestimate the psychological impact of seeing one's check drop, especially when ever higher prices are already adding pressure to make ends meet. Also remember that 2% is 2% of gross. It's likely a 3-4% reduction in one's net depending on what one withholds for taxes and benefits.

 

[Bowfinger]

I've suggested potential solutions before, but no one who has any influence and the partisans themselves don't want to listen. They'd rather burn the nation and "win".

Indeed. America's ultimate destruction will come from within.

 

[OutHouse]

The poor are already in the shitter. For a $50K/ year earner, it's $20/wk. Not a big deal, imo.

who are you to decide whats a big deal or not for people finances? this is the problem, people like you think giving money to the government does not cost. well it does, it means that people will now have LESS money to save or spend as they see fit. its my money not yours or the governments.

people in california are already paying 50% of their income to taxes. how much is enough? when will people rise up and say enough? is it 60% or 75% or hell lets just cut to the chase and give 100% of our money to the government!

 

[CycloWizard]

Dude, you're the guy who insists he has all the answers. You tell us. Support your assertions with actual data instead of hand waving and straw. Prove that it's "impossible to pay for". Your words.

The proof is self-obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Have any of the wealthiest individuals from the past lived forever? No. Will any of the wealthiest individuals alive today live forever? No. Why not? Because no amount of money can keep one alive with any quality of life indefinitely. I only add the caveat "with any quality of life" because it may be possible to prolong someone's life using modern medical machinery indefinitely if they are in a coma. Healthcare for seniors is a bottomless pit into which you could throw the entire GDP and yield marginal gains.

 

[Bowfinger]

The proof is self-obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Have any of the wealthiest individuals from the past lived forever? No. Will any of the wealthiest individuals alive today live forever? No. Why not? Because no amount of money can keep one alive with any quality of life indefinitely. I only add the caveat "with any quality of life" because it may be possible to prolong someone's life using modern medical machinery indefinitely if they are in a coma. Healthcare for seniors is a bottomless pit into which you could throw the entire GDP and yield marginal gains.

Once again, since you seem to fail at reading comprehension, you are the only one here conflating health care with immortality. You need to get over your straw fetish if you want to be anything more than a complete waste of electrons.

So, once again, YOU claimed it was "impossible to pay for". Once again, your words. Once again, prove your words. Once again, offer something credible and factual rather than mindless hand waving and continued dishonest yapping about immortality. "This is a question involving facts and hard numbers instead of feelings and hand-wringing so I don't really expect an answer."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The proof is self-obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Have any of the wealthiest individuals from the past lived forever? No. Will any of the wealthiest individuals alive today live forever? No. Why not? Because no amount of money can keep one alive with any quality of life indefinitely. I only add the caveat "with any quality of life" because it may be possible to prolong someone's life using modern medical machinery indefinitely if they are in a coma. Healthcare for seniors is a bottomless pit into which you could throw the entire GDP and yield marginal gains.

There is a limit to what can be afforded, but that's part of an analysis of healthcare in the context of having a functional system and that is the very last thing being asked for. How much? Who gets it? Who decides? Hard questions that are to be avoided at all political costs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Once again, since you seem to fail at reading comprehension, you are the only one here conflating health care with immortality. You need to get over your straw fetish if you want to be anything more than a complete waste of electrons.

So, once again, YOU claimed it was "impossible to pay for". Once again, your words. Once again, prove your words. Once again, offer something credible and factual rather than mindless hand waving and continued dishonest yapping about immortality. "This is a question involving facts and hard numbers instead of feelings and hand-wringing so I don't really expect an answer."

Might I suggest we consider both your points in a context as I suggested in my last post.

The truth is that at some point there isn't enough money to keep someone alive. What we need to do is arrive as a consensus of what we can afford and how and who makes those decisions. People who are older will consume more resources since that's the nature of life. Beyond what point do we say it's a lost cause? What can we do to responsibly care for those who are at the point of death?

Perhaps that's a more profitable line of inquiry.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Yes, but it is NOT proportional to your contributions. Someone who made 20,000 a year vs someone who made 40,000 a year adjusted for inflation. The person who made 40,000 would have put in twice as much, but will only get back 1500 vs the 1000 the 20,000 person would get, around 1.5 times as much only. In fact someone who makes 60,000 and contributed 3 times as much as someone who makes 20,000 would only get twice as much back and not 3 times.

Yep, you're correct. The steps up from 20k to 40k to 60k are about half of what you would expect, if it was entirely proportional. The max contribution and benefit levels are the worst.

I really don't like the idea of Social Security retirement benefits. I just don't think it's a role the government needs to or should handle - taking money from workers, "investing it" for them, and repaying them in old age. People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. Stick money into a 401k or IRA. The government benefits are basically a forced 401k (with only 85% of withdrawals being taxable vs. 100%) with a guaranteed low returns that step down as your contribution amount goes up. You could probably beat the return with bonds and then you keep all of the overhead of the government out of it. Obviously, the issue with this is that a lot of people will just spend the extra money they see in their paycheck. Is it the government's job to save people from their own poor decisions?

 

[Lithium381]

Yep, you're correct. The steps up from 20k to 40k to 60k are about half of what you would expect, if it was entirely proportional. The max contribution and benefit levels are the worst.

I really don't like the idea of Social Security retirement benefits. I just don't think it's a role the government needs to or should handle - taking money from workers, "investing it" for them, and repaying them in old age. People need to learn to be responsible for themselves. Stick money into a 401k or IRA. The government benefits are basically a forced 401k (with only 85% of withdrawals being taxable vs. 100%) with a guaranteed low returns that step down as your contribution amount goes up. You could probably beat the return with bonds and then you keep all of the overhead of the government out of it. Obviously, the issue with this is that a lot of people will just spend the extra money they see in their paycheck. Is it the government's job to save people from their own poor decisions?

in the nanny state, yes it is. big brother knows best

 

[highland145]

who are you to decide whats a big deal or not for people finances? this is the problem, people like you think giving money to the government does not cost. well it does, it means that people will now have LESS money to save or spend as they see fit. its my money not yours or the governments.

people in california are already paying 50% of their income to taxes. how much is enough? when will people rise up and say enough? is it 60% or 75% or hell lets just cut to the chase and give 100% of our money to the government!

Considering SS has been over 6% of American's check since 1988 and the SS fund has been in negative receipts since 1986, the only problem I'm seeing is the dumb asses that thought it would be a good idea to cut 2% for the last 2 years.

Cali is getting the ass pounding because of the people they elect and the way their government works. No sympathy here. And they're running what deficits?

 

[LTC8K6]

I hope you're right, but I think you underestimate the psychological impact of seeing one's check drop, especially when ever higher prices are already adding pressure to make ends meet. Also remember that 2% is 2% of gross. It's likely a 3-4% reduction in one's net depending on what one withholds for taxes and benefits.

Well, they had a whole 3 minutes or so to look the bill over. They probably assumed certain things were in it, and certain things weren't.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senators-got-154-page-fiscal-cliff-bill-3-minutes-voting-it

 

[Bowfinger]

Might I suggest we consider both your points in a context as I suggested in my last post.

The truth is that at some point there isn't enough money to keep someone alive. What we need to do is arrive as a consensus of what we can afford and how and who makes those decisions. People who are older will consume more resources since that's the nature of life. Beyond what point do we say it's a lost cause? What can we do to responsibly care for those who are at the point of death?

Perhaps that's a more profitable line of inquiry.

Absolutely, I agree. That was the point I was driving to. Saying it's "impossible to pay for" elderly health care is a pointless and frankly dumb assertion. As you say, the fruitful discussion is what are our constraints and how can we most effectively provide services? Further, as Acanthus touched on, should we shift our priorities to support better health care for more people?

I think the question of how we can provide health care more effectively is especially important, an issue I know you've raised many times before. The current American system is clearly broken. I think Obamacare was a necessary icebreaker, but it certainly doesn't fix it. So, how do we fix it? The rest of industrialized world does so much better overall than we do. How do we get better?

 

[BoberFett]

It is impossible to pay for while policing the world. Yes.

Cut our military and espionage budgets back down to reasonable, and by proxy stop 1/4 of the earth from hating us, and suddenly you have lots of room.

You could cut the military budget entirely - meaning zero military - and we'd still have a sizable deficit.

We're well beyond fucked.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Don't be obtuse - this was always going to expire with the full backing of the R and D parties. Income tax changes are something else altogether.

And I bet several on here that were wetting themselves with excitement over the rich finally having to pay more were not thinking about this due to said excitement.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The 2% increase isn't so bad . But There idea behind it are . If Americans that are working have to pay 2% mmore thats 2% that is taken out of the economy . That is a big deal . Go Obama I think you can bankrupt us sooner than latter I know you can do it dog .

 

[Nemesis 1]

My trigger finger is for hire. I guess I will work for the 2% beings the other 98% can't pay for my loyalty. I kidd you not. I will never go against the powerful . I will wait for them to screw themselves just like the poor have already done in this country

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Absolutely, I agree. That was the point I was driving to. Saying it's "impossible to pay for" elderly health care is a pointless and frankly dumb assertion. As you say, the fruitful discussion is what are our constraints and how can we most effectively provide services? Further, as Acanthus touched on, should we shift our priorities to support better health care for more people?

I think the question of how we can provide health care more effectively is especially important, an issue I know you've raised many times before. The current American system is clearly broken. I think Obamacare was a necessary icebreaker, but it certainly doesn't fix it. So, how do we fix it? The rest of industrialized world does so much better overall than we do. How do we get better?

How do we fix it indeed. If I offered the perfect solution it wouldn't matter. Good answers aren't wanted, merely political ones.

As far as Obamacare goes it's a kluge that is the foundation that all will be built on, broken and shaky. Again, if a real plan could be had neither party would allow it.

 

[Rainsford]

You could cut the military budget entirely - meaning zero military - and we'd still have a sizable deficit.

We're well beyond fucked.

I'll never understand the attitude that because ONE thing in an incredibly complex federal budget equation won't solve the problem all by itself, we should just throw up our hands and give up. There is no single perfect answer, a balanced budget should be reached with a combination of things.

 

[Rainsford]

A thousand dollars a year isn't insignificant when the amount of discretionary spending is low.

Which is a big reason progressive tax rates make sense, since discretionary spending as a portion of income is also progressive. And it has nothing to do with overall tax revenue, the same logic applies no matter what the tax rates are.