danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Actually, I think that there's a global issue to do with commodity prices and availability that is causing a general hiccup in recoveries. But hey, you keep right on blaming one man.

The global economy didn't force him to rack up $3T of debt in two years.

No, because he didn't inherit a bad economy with deficts of over $1T a year and with a populace who want to close the deficit and get tax cuts at the same time.

Not factually accurate.

Tax cuts happened when?

2008 fiscal deficit (last year for which Obama bears no responsibility) $455B.

The global economy didn't force the shut down of the Gulf oil industry

No, a bloody great explosion did.

See above.

One man's overreaction to a singular incident caused it.

RickyP,
I understand that a reduction in services comes about from lower taxes. (GOOD!)
A reduction of services is what I am looking for.
A reduction of services will decrease the expenditures the government needs, thus reducing deficits.

Danivon,
I have said it before, have Social Security be a government savings account that is specifically set for the person who contributes. The more you contribute, the more you have available. Because there are people who do not pay into the system at all, and then get the same benefits as other who do pay; there is that feeling of "some people being taken care of at other's expense. I do not "kvetch" (I had to look that one up!) about unemployment benefits. That should be the choice of the employee. If you choose to not pay "insurance" then do not "kvetch" when you become unemployed. If you chose to pay for the insurance... All the better. for the responsible employee.

It all reminds me of that fable about the ant and the grasshopper.

bbauska wrote:I have said it before, have Social Security be a government savings account that is specifically set for the person who contributes. The more you contribute, the more you have available. Because there are people who do not pay into the system at all, and then get the same benefits as other who do pay; there is that feeling of "some people being taken care of at other's expense. I do not "kvetch" (I had to look that one up!) about unemployment benefits. That should be the choice of the employee. If you choose to not pay "insurance" then do not "kvetch" when you become unemployed. If you chose to pay for the insurance... All the better. for the responsible employee.

SS benefits are directly related to how much you pay into it, the more you pay into it the larger the benefit you get. Second, in most, if not all states, unemployment insurance is mandatory. It is paid for by the employer and is one of the many taxes that make up the payroll taxes. There is no "choice" for not paying for unemployment, and the worker has nothing to do with paying it.

And you had to look up kvetch???

I understand the current system with SS and unemployment benefits. The positions I took are entirely the opinions of bbauska and may not necessarily reflect those of Redscape or any of it's subsidiaries.

Why should the employer have to pay for the unemployment insurance of it's employees via mandate? Shouldn't the employee make that choice of having the extra wage in his/her pay?

Regarding SS benefits...

How much does a 74 year old mother from Poland make after she becomes naturalized if she never worked in the US? Does she get the same amount she paid in? If not, who pays the difference?

bbauska
I

understand that a reduction in services comes about from lower taxes

My comment was not a reference to you personnally. Its to a several decades long adventure in which tax payers have been promised that lowering taxes won't reduce revenues. And that there will be no change to services. Witness the bankrupting of California with contradictory referendums that set limits on both minmal service and benefit reductions and maximum taxes...
Even unto today there are politicians who beleive that they can state, without fear of retribution, that tax cuts always pay for themselves...
The difficulty for those now who want cuts, is that when they get specific about what to cut, the populace retreats from the idea. Always supportive of vague nonsense words like "waste" but never of cuts to the programs that affect me.

I have stated what cuts I want. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle have not. This is what needs to happen:

1.) 20-25 percent cut in ALL budgets.
2.) Balanced Budget Amendment passed
3.) Tax populace at an equal percentage until deficit is paid. Then reduce percentage across the populace to cover spending.

Both sides would hate this. It must be right.

bbauska wrote:I understand the current system with SS and unemployment benefits. The positions I took are entirely the opinions of bbauska and may not necessarily reflect those of Redscape or any of it's subsidiaries.

Why should the employer have to pay for the unemployment insurance of it's employees via mandate? Shouldn't the employee make that choice of having the extra wage in his/her pay?

Regarding SS benefits...

How much does a 74 year old mother from Poland make after she becomes naturalized if she never worked in the US? Does she get the same amount she paid in? If not, who pays the difference?

Regarding SS benefits, to receive retirement benefits, you need to accumulate 40 credits. A credit is $1,120 of wages or self employment income. You can earn 4 credits in one year. Beyond that, your social security is based on your earnings; however, if you earn over a certain amount each year, it does not go into the benefit calculation. So, even though the maximum SS income you pay tax on is about $107,000, over a certain point (about $40,000???) the pay in to the system does not result in additional benefit payments to you because there is a maximum monthly payout to recipients. That amount is currently about $2,400.

So, I think your Polish lady would get $0.

geojanes wrote:SS benefits are directly related to how much you pay into it, the more you pay into it the larger the benefit you get.

Good phrasing--"directly related."

Now, does the average low income SS recipient, get a poor, fair, good, or unbelievable return on investment (based on the amount they put in versus how much they receive)?

For an average low income employee, I think the answer is very good for social security and un (fcuking) believable for medicare.

Ray Jay wrote:For an average low income employee, I think the answer is very good for social security and un (fcuking) believable for medicare.

Thus, we have one answer for why the program is unsustainable: it is a gigantic welfare program.

Now, we can decide we're going to be a welfare state, but we're going to have to stop all foreign interventions, get serious about border security (so we can take care of our own ne'er-do-wells first), and raise taxes like there's no tomorrow.

That's certainly a way to go. I wish Democrats would just be up front and admit that's what they want.

Classic: I'd love to see this in an ad--from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chair, on Meet the Press yesterday:

REP. SCHULTZ: Because we were able to, under President Obama's leadership, turn this economy around. When President Obama took office...

MR. GREGORY: Whoa, whoa, let me just stop you there. Clearly, the economy has not been turned around. I mean, you just saw those numbers.

REP. SCHULTZ: It, it certainly--it has...

MR. GREGORY: Americans don't believe that's the case.

She is the best!

bbauska wrote:RickyP,
I understand that a reduction in services comes about from lower taxes. (GOOD!)

Not necessarily. Lower taxes with no reduction in spending will leader to higher deficits (or a lower surplus).

A reduction of services is what I am looking for.
A reduction of services will decrease the expenditures the government needs, thus reducing deficits.

But not necessarily reducing taxes as well. Depending how far you can reduce spending, it may still leave a deficit which might call for higher taxes to make up the shortfall.

Danivon,
I have said it before, have Social Security be a government savings account that is specifically set for the person who contributes. The more you contribute, the more you have available.

Well, yes, but Social Security is more like insurance than a savings plan. It's pooled. My private pension (when it was a decent one) was based on a similar principle - how much I paid in was related to my salary, and how much my pension was would also relate to my salary, but it was not an 'account', it was pooled with every other member's pension. As long as the pool is financed, the idea that the risk is shared smoothes out the premiums and people tend to get a decent pension. The bigger the pool (and the wider it is), the more that the risk is consolidated.

Some people can't contribute, for whatever reason. What happens to them?

Because there are people who do not pay into the system at all, and then get the same benefits as other who do pay; there is that feeling of "some people being taken care of at other's expense.

This does not tally with what other commenters on this thread have said - people need to get credits by paying in in order to get more benefits. So someone who has paid in and got credits will get more than another who pays nothing, it seems.

I do not "kvetch" (I had to look that one up!) about unemployment benefits. That should be the choice of the employee. If you choose to not pay "insurance" then do not "kvetch" when you become unemployed. If you chose to pay for the insurance... All the better. for the responsible employee.

As has been mentioned, employment insurance is usually a payroll tax (over here it's the same 'tax' as our version of Social Security, National Insurance, which was also used to pay for the NHS, along with subsidy from other taxation).

But at the same time, someone who is unemployed can't also be paying Social Security, as much as they'd like to, even if they are actively seeking work. It makes sense to build in part of the payroll tax 'premium' to include that one.

It all reminds me of that fable about the ant and the grasshopper.

We will always have people who rely on others to survive. the question I guess is do we give freely, encourage them (or mandate them) to contribute when they are able, and accept that some people will be getting more out than they put in over their lifetimes...

Or what?

danivon wrote:Some people can't contribute, for whatever reason. What happens to them?

In our system they do not collect. In order to collect SS old age payments one must pay into the system for 10 years or be married to some who paid in for 10 years at the time of his/her death.

Here's an interesting article in today's WSJ about comparative tax burdens:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... _pageone_2

In case you cannot access, one interesting point is that Americans making less than $25,000 per year have a substantially lower tax burden then their Europeans brethren. Americans making more than $200,000 also have lower comparative taxes than Europeans, but the variance is lower for the upper income group than it is for the lower income group.

RJ,
If any employee/employer put money into a system for a person, should they get that exact amount back? That is my question? Whether it be Medicare, Social Security, SSI, or otherwise. If an employee/employer is forced to contribute, why is there someone else getting those funds? I can understand "Mandated savings". I cannot understand paying for someone now, when I will be receiving later. That is why people regard this as a Ponzi scheme.

Going back to the little old Polish lady...

She comes to America at age 52, naturalizes (GOOD FOR HER!), and begins to pay into the SS program. She makes 4500/year for 10 years, retires at 62, and gets how much back? Considering she will probably live to 85 (a conservative estimate, btw), does she get more or less than she paid in?