Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
OK you're President. Without pulling the "its all X party's fault!!!":
1. Is this bad?
2. What would you do about it?

1) Is it bad? Of course it's bad. The hardest working, most skilled people should be in the positions of most responsibility, and paid the most the work they do. I can't believe that's even a question.

2) What would I do about it? Well I'd put it in context first. The US is trending the wrong way in this, but it is still a decent place.

After that I'd focus on ensuring more equal education across the nation. I'd look to ensure decent levels of spending in every primary and secondary school, so kids have access to a good education even if they're born in a poor area. And then I'd look to make acceptance in tertiary education genuinely merit based and far more affordable. You don't get access to a prestigious college because your Dad was rich, you get in only if your grades are excellent. I'd look to reform the second tier colleges as well, and look to turn many into the low cost vocational colleges they really ought to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
"The core American belief that a large sector of the public enjoys economic and social mobility is not necessarily true anymore"

Has this ever been true? Social mobility in the USA has been far lower than in Europe for a very long while, comparable to Russia.

It hasn't been true for a while, what's changing is that Americans are beginning to realise it. Where they go from here is a pretty good question - there's a lot of American political beliefs tied up in the assumption that they live in a meritocracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Personally my first step would be to eliminate corporate and personal income tax (along with payroll taxes and other fun things) for a flat consumption tax. For the full details on that google the Fair Tax.

Please just don't. We do not need another thread that ends up with people explaining why the flat tax is a terrible idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I know International Accountant/Tax Lawyers who is advocating this as "step one". US has the HIGHEST tax rate in the world.... and the thing is, its really cost applied to the consumers. The other thing is to change the corporate tax law to a "Territorial Base" taxation(we're practically the only Western Country to do this), rather than the current Global taxation... that's why money earned overseas don't usually come back to US.

It's just a start....

Sort of. The US has a high rate (and a horrible tax structure that taxes you again on that money when you receive dividends) but US corporations aren't really taxed more than elsewhere. This because there is a truly incredible number of exceptions, deductions and rebates available in the US tax code, which frequently have little to do with expenditure undertaken to generate revenue. This actually means that the US scores quite poorly in international business reviews for its tax code, not because you're likely to pay a lot of money but because it costs a fortune to produce a tax return.

Honestly, the most meaningful reform you could make in this area is to reform the tax code. Start with a base assumption for what revenue is, and what a deduction is, and then build from there. Unfortunately with the scale of money in US politics today the odds of building a new tax code that isn't full of as many exceptions for special interests as the current tax code is exactly zero.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amaya wrote:
What's with the fething obsession with the Gold standard?

A lot of people are confused about what an economy is, and how it works. The idea that a dollar could just be a piece of paper confuses the hell out of them, because they do not understand that it is trading goods and services, and not dollars that makes an economy work. They really feel as if a dollar should be a real thing, and when it isn't they panic.

It's a really weird kind of panic because nothing is actually going wrong, and so they end up like Ron Paul shouting 'it's all about to collapse in hyper inflation' and repeating this over and over again for more than three decades.

 dogma wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:

You pay into the system and can reasonably expect to get that money back. That is NOT "Entitlement".

Yes, it is. That's pretty much what the word means.

Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Now, if I pay into something, say a savings account, how is expecting to get my money back considered to be an entitlement as defined above, courtesy of MW onlne.

 helgrenze wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:

You pay into the system and can reasonably expect to get that money back. That is NOT "Entitlement".

Yes, it is. That's pretty much what the word means.

Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Now, if I pay into something, say a savings account, how is expecting to get my money back considered to be an entitlement as defined above, courtesy of MW onlne.

Because you deserve it, or are 'entitled' to it

 whembly wrote:
In 2010, median family income was $51,360. If a typical family followed the federal government's lead, it would spend $73,319 and put 30 cents of every dollar spent on a credit card. This family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt—like a mortgage, only without the house. What credit card company would continue lending money to this family?

Assuming its a four person family they'd also hold about a million in assets. One of the really weird things about fiscal hawks is their inability to understand net assets, and look only at debt.

The main driver behind long-term deficits is government spending, not low revenue. While revenue will surpass its historical average of 18.1 percent of GDP by 2018, spending remains above its historical average of 20.2 percent, reaching 22.1 percent by 2022, even after $2.1 trillion in spending cuts in the Budget Control Act.

The Heritage foundation is decieving you here. As a percentage of GDP tax revenues are lower than they've been since WWII. If you were to put them to their historic average your deficit would shrink massively.

At the same time spending is just above their historic average, and is only forecast to get higher because of the demographic bulge - the baby boomers will be retiring. To see that information and conclude the answer is less spending and less tax requires an incredible level of self deception.

But fortunately the Heritage foundation is extremely good at that.

Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. While federal revenues are recovering from the recent recession, spending is growing sharply, resulting in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.

Well yeah, spending goes up in recession, just as revenues go down. That's how it works.

The Budget Control Act's $1.2 trillion automatic sequestration cuts, out of $46.3 trillion in total spending, would impose draconian cuts on defense (on top of an estimated $407 billion in cuts from its spending caps). This would slash the defense budget and jeopardize the U.S. military's ability to defend the nation. Entitlement spending—the biggest part of the budget— would scarcely be touched by comparison.

The cuts in defence aren't actually cuts, but reductions in projected future increases. And whether that priority is right depends on whether you think the US really need 7 seven seperate carrier groups that are all individually greater than the sum total naval power of the rest of the world, and how that ranks up against guaranteeing every child a school lunch.

Runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels over the next few decades. Total national debt consists of publicly held debt and intergovernmental debt. Intergovernmental debt is the amount that the government owes to specific programs or agencies, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Publicly held debt is more

It isn't runaway spending. It's exactly what has to happen as a result of basic demographic realities. The Heritage foundation knows this, but tries to frame it as 'runaway spending' because they're basically a bunch of dishonest liars.

Tax cuts can create incentives for individuals to work, save, and invest, which can generate more revenue.

There has never been a study undertaken that showed an incentive change in work resulting from a tax change. It continues to be a belief held by conservatives that no-one has even seen in the real world.

I mean, ask yourself, if your top marginal tax rate went from 30% to 28% would that spark you into working another hour of over time? Do you think anyone has ever said 'oh I didn't use to bother because I only got to take home $10.50 for working an extra hour, but now I take home $10.80 I work an extra hour all the time'?

 helgrenze wrote:

Now, if I pay into something, say a savings account, how is expecting to get my money back considered to be an entitlement as defined above, courtesy of MW onlne.

Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

Did you not read the definition you quoted?

Though, funnily enough, your use of "expecting" above does hint at the negative understanding of "entitlement".

 helgrenze wrote:
I love how people claim that Social Security is an "Entitlement". Fact is, in most cases, it is not. Working people have been paying into SS since their first real paycheck. Claiming that it is an entitlement is like saying a Christmas Club account is one.
You pay into the system and can reasonably expect to get that money back. That is NOT "Entitlement".
The problem is that people in government have been looking at this "federal savings account" as a menas of paying for things they otherwise cannot afford and have been leaching money from it to pay for same.

Change the retirement age to 70, starting now. At inception very few people had it, because the retirement age was being the average lifespan. That was the idea. Moving it to 70, in light of advanced medical techniques, is nothing now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Change the retirement age to 70, starting now.

That is easy for you to say, being well past 70 by many moons and seasons.

Sonny my underwear has underwear older than you!

A new TBone is older than-
TBone's so old, he knows why Honest Abe had to wear a beard.

 Frazzled wrote:

 helgrenze wrote:
I love how people claim that Social Security is an "Entitlement". Fact is, in most cases, it is not. Working people have been paying into SS since their first real paycheck. Claiming that it is an entitlement is like saying a Christmas Club account is one.
You pay into the system and can reasonably expect to get that money back. That is NOT "Entitlement".
The problem is that people in government have been looking at this "federal savings account" as a menas of paying for things they otherwise cannot afford and have been leaching money from it to pay for same.

Change the retirement age to 70, starting now. At inception very few people had it, because the retirement age was being the average lifespan. That was the idea. Moving it to 70, in light of advanced medical techniques, is nothing now.

I wouldn't sweat that if it happened. I'm never going to have a nice pension like both of my parents have, so I'll probably be working until I'm 70 anyway in a vain attempt to save enough for retirement.

 Frazzled wrote:

Change the retirement age to 70, starting now. At inception very few people had it, because the retirement age was being the average lifespan. That was the idea. Moving it to 70, in light of advanced medical techniques, is nothing now.

I agree with this, but good luck getting it past Congress.

 sebster wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:
In 2010, median family income was $51,360. If a typical family followed the federal government's lead, it would spend $73,319 and put 30 cents of every dollar spent on a credit card. This family would have racked up $325,781 in credit card debt—like a mortgage, only without the house. What credit card company would continue lending money to this family?

Assuming its a four person family they'd also hold about a million in assets. One of the really weird things about fiscal hawks is their inability to understand net assets, and look only at debt.

The main driver behind long-term deficits is government spending, not low revenue. While revenue will surpass its historical average of 18.1 percent of GDP by 2018, spending remains above its historical average of 20.2 percent, reaching 22.1 percent by 2022, even after $2.1 trillion in spending cuts in the Budget Control Act.

The Heritage foundation is decieving you here. As a percentage of GDP tax revenues are lower than they've been since WWII. If you were to put them to their historic average your deficit would shrink massively.

At the same time spending is just above their historic average, and is only forecast to get higher because of the demographic bulge - the baby boomers will be retiring. To see that information and conclude the answer is less spending and less tax requires an incredible level of self deception.

But fortunately the Heritage foundation is extremely good at that.

Since 1965, spending has risen constantly. While federal revenues are recovering from the recent recession, spending is growing sharply, resulting in four consecutive years of deficits exceeding $1 trillion.

Well yeah, spending goes up in recession, just as revenues go down. That's how it works.

The Budget Control Act's $1.2 trillion automatic sequestration cuts, out of $46.3 trillion in total spending, would impose draconian cuts on defense (on top of an estimated $407 billion in cuts from its spending caps). This would slash the defense budget and jeopardize the U.S. military's ability to defend the nation. Entitlement spending—the biggest part of the budget— would scarcely be touched by comparison.

The cuts in defence aren't actually cuts, but reductions in projected future increases. And whether that priority is right depends on whether you think the US really need 7 seven seperate carrier groups that are all individually greater than the sum total naval power of the rest of the world, and how that ranks up against guaranteeing every child a school lunch.

Runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels over the next few decades. Total national debt consists of publicly held debt and intergovernmental debt. Intergovernmental debt is the amount that the government owes to specific programs or agencies, such as the Social Security Trust Fund. Publicly held debt is more

It isn't runaway spending. It's exactly what has to happen as a result of basic demographic realities. The Heritage foundation knows this, but tries to frame it as 'runaway spending' because they're basically a bunch of dishonest liars.

Tax cuts can create incentives for individuals to work, save, and invest, which can generate more revenue.

There has never been a study undertaken that showed an incentive change in work resulting from a tax change. It continues to be a belief held by conservatives that no-one has even seen in the real world.

I mean, ask yourself, if your top marginal tax rate went from 30% to 28% would that spark you into working another hour of over time? Do you think anyone has ever said 'oh I didn't use to bother because I only got to take home $10.50 for working an extra hour, but now I take home $10.80 I work an extra hour all the time'?

Good analysis... the only thing I can say is this: "There's Lies, LIES and statistics"... similar to our verbal-jousting with that WHO chart of best healthcare.

But, that last statement you made (unspoiler'ed part) just doesn't jive with me. Increasing or Decreasing tax rates most definately changes the market behaviors. Decreasing the rate gives you more "take home" pay, which would then be put back in the economy (for some reason, we don't like saving... if we all "saved" the difference, then that'd be bad). Increasing the rates obviously means less "take home"pay or a change in behavior to mitigate this... no one likes paying more taxes.

My stance is really arguing the "degree" of government spending. We cannot take it out and rely on a pure capitalistic economy (which doesn't exists). Nor can we saturate the economy with excessive gov spending. Maybe with our deficit spending today, it's needed to ensure things don't get worse. I get that argument. My thing is that all to often, the government is looked at to fix things, and it's a dangerous path/philosophy in the long run.

This is a balancing act... which way do we wanna go.

 whembly wrote:
for some reason, we don't like saving... if we all "saved" the difference, then that'd be bad

Its only bad if "saving" means stuffing USD in your mattress.

 whembly wrote:

My thing is that all to often, the government is looked at to fix things, and it's a dangerous path/philosophy in the long run.

I would extend that to say that government is all too often blamed for problems that it has very little hand in. It is a US tradition, since Reagan, to blame the state and absolve the people and corporations.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
for some reason, we don't like saving... if we all "saved" the difference, then that'd be bad

Its only bad if "saving" means stuffing USD in your mattress.

TheHammer wrote:
Easy:

Reverse many free trade and globalization schemes.
Tax the wealthy and corporations to keep firms smaller.
Reduce the size of the military and reinvest that money into education and infrastructure.
Enact public works projects to get people employed.


The largest problem facing our economy is that we are all, individually, so much more productive than ever before in history. Since we can all create so many more goods and services it literally takes fewer people to take care of everyone's needs, so the surplus value of that productivity goes to the owners of capital while they continue to strangle ever more productivity out of the working classes.

Until we accept that not everyone is going to be a computer programmer, but that everyone also deserves a respectful life we won't get anything done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, universal healthcare and subsidizing education would go a long way towards helping the existing middle class not file bankruptcy.

Most of this post is true wisdom and should be taken to heart.

I'd contribute to this but... well, it seems that people form their policital opinions based less on rational thought and more on a need to belong to a group. Then once they've joined the group anything that contradicts the ideas of the group becomes a personal attack... no matter what or how much evidence backs it up.

Case in point: the whole 'Obama's wrecking the economy' thing. Wall street is at an all time highs andCorporations are making record profits, sounds like the the economy is doing fine.

No, it's not helping the average American get back on their feet at all - thus proving that 'trickle down economics' is incorrect at best, and an outright lie at worst.

But get the people who believe in trickle-down economics to look at it rationally enough to aborb that little detail...

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Change the retirement age to 70, starting now. At inception very few people had it, because the retirement age was being the average lifespan. That was the idea. Moving it to 70, in light of advanced medical techniques, is nothing now.

I agree with this, but good luck getting it past Congress.

It will happen. If you want a viable SS system it can't NOT happen.

 Frazzled wrote:

It will happen. If you want a viable SS system it can't NOT happen.

No, you hope it will happen. And there are other ways to create a viable Social Security system.

Our current Social Security system is viable. It works, and it works well. Small changes are needed to keep it solvent, but it's Not A Big Deal. Same with Medicare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and most other programs.

Medicare has larger problems, all due to its success really, but yeah.

I'm just tired of seeing people lump the four together and talk about how entitlements are bankrupting the nation. They aren't.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

It will happen. If you want a viable SS system it can't NOT happen.

No, you hope it will happen. And there are other ways to create a viable Social Security system.

I'm open to other options. Care to cite some?

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm open to other options. Care to cite some?

Removing the FICA cap is the most obvious one, but you could also reduce benefits* or institute entirely new taxes.

Though, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "viable".


*For example, stop covering life threatening illnesses like cancer.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I'm open to other options. Care to cite some?

Removing the FICA cap is the most obvious one, but you could also reduce benefits* or institute entirely new taxes.

Though, I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "viable".


*For example, stop covering life threatening illnesses like cancer.

The first two are indeed options.
Don't get the cancer thing though. We're talking about social security. Plus most cancers are treatable. Thats like saying stop covering illnesses like flus, or heart attacks, or pneumonia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:
Our current Social Security system is viable. It works, and it works well. Small changes are needed to keep it solvent, but it's Not A Big Deal. Same with Medicare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and most other programs.

Medicare has larger problems, all due to its success really, but yeah.

I'm just tired of seeing people lump the four together and talk about how entitlements are bankrupting the nation. They aren't.

So much wrong...

 Frazzled wrote:

Don't get the cancer thing though. We're talking about social security. Plus most cancers are treatable. Thats like saying stop covering illnesses like flus, or heart attacks, or pneumonia.

Yep, we're talking about social security and while most cancers are treatable, why are we spending money on people that aren't long for this world (and generally happen to be retired) in any case?

What's wrong, Frazzled?

People continuously lump Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid all together and accuse each of bankrupting the nation.

All are very successful programs, but only Medicare is of any real danger to the budget. Social Security is largely fine, and needs only slight tweaks to continue being so, and Medicaid is an incredibly popular and successful program.

Medicare has become a victim of its own success: it has allowed people to live much older than ever imaged, and it has also created increased demand in the healthcare industry that has funded new research to keep doing so. That success means people live longer and will also cost more to keep alive.

I misspoke above, and did not mean to include Medicare in the group of successful programs that only require slight tweaks to continue going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dogma mentions a very important issue: the vast majority of medical expenses take place in the last 6 months of life. One of the real missed opportunities with the Affordable Care Act is that there are no "death panels", so Medicare continues to give incentives to treat people until the very end no matter how costly or futile.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Don't get the cancer thing though. We're talking about social security. Plus most cancers are treatable. Thats like saying stop covering illnesses like flus, or heart attacks, or pneumonia.

Yep, we're talking about social security and while most cancers are treatable, why are we spending money on people that aren't long for this world (and generally happen to be retired) in any case?

Er...awesome. Death panels all around.

TheHammer wrote:
continues to give incentives to treat people until the very end no matter how costly or futile.

Sounds like all my dates.

 Frazzled wrote:

Er...awesome. Death panels all around.

Yep. Social Security, and government as a whole, should be run like a business. The retired are not going to contribute to our economic prosperity, therefore they are worthless and shouldn't be given aid. In fact they hinder us by consuming food, water, and air that could be given to young people with strong backs. That we don't hunt them down is a shocking degree of mercy and weakness.

Sounds like all my dates.

lol broaden your pool of dates

 Ahtman wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
continues to give incentives to treat people until the very end no matter how costly or futile.

Sounds like all my dates.

Spoiler:

take an exalt for that, I laughed way more then I should have.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Change the retirement age to 70, starting now. At inception very few people had it, because the retirement age was being the average lifespan. That was the idea. Moving it to 70, in light of advanced medical techniques, is nothing now.

I agree with this, but good luck getting it past Congress.

You can use the taxes they pay to pay for the social security of the unemployed young people they replace. That'll be nice.