The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Economics => Topic started by: cavegal on November 10, 2010, 12:51:03 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/10/deficit-commission-recommends-changes-social-security/
A draft proposal by the deficit commission suggests curbing Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age.
-
I heard Rush mention that the recommendations included reducing COLAs. Pretty ironic if so, since for two years in a row, there hasn't been one.
:rotf:
-
I heard Rush mention that the recommendations included reducing COLAs. Pretty ironic if so, since for two years in a row, there hasn't been one.
:rotf:
Well....on balance, I wouldn't have any problem with this.......so long as every government employee (including congress), and every federally-funded program was subject to the exact same restriction.
doc
-
The DUmmies are having fits about this.
-
The DUmmies are having fits about this.
Wow I will have to go over and see that!
-
The plan would reduce Social Security benefits to most future retirees — low-income people would get a higher benefit — and it would subject higher levels of income to payroll taxes to ensure Social Security’s solvency for at least the next 75 years.
But the plan would not count any savings from Social Security toward meeting the overall deficit-reduction goal set by Mr. Obama, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to balance the nation’s books.
The federal tax on gasoline, now 14.8 cents a gallon, would more than double between 2013 and 2015, so that revenue from the tax and similar user fees could cover all transportation and highway spending programs, and the funds set up for that purpose would no longer require money from the general treasury.
The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments — so that income tax rates could be reduced across the board. Under the plan, individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent on the lowest income bracket (now 10 percent) and to 23 percent on the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to as low as 26 percent.
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/us/politics/11fiscal.html?_r=1&hp)
-
Unhappy critters...
“This is not a package that I could support,†Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, said during a break in a private meeting by the commission. She said any package able to win 14 votes on the panel would have to look “very different†from the options being discussed.
Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, called the plan a “starting point for the conversation.â€
“We’re not going to have an up-or-down vote on this,†said Durbin. “There are proposals in there that are painful. I told them I said there are things in here which inspire me and other things which I hate like the devil hates holy water. I’m not going to vote for those things.â€
Some Republicans also expressed skepticism that the report would survive in its current form. New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg called the plan a “starting point.†Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas said “some of it I like, some of it disturbs me.â€
Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-10/debt-proposal-would-cut-social-security-medicare.html)
-
Seriously, just give me back all the money I've paid in. It's obvious I'm never going to see it at the present rate.
-
nancy who?
deficit reduction is good for everyone, thus , to the extent that such a meaningless word has any relevance in this conversation, it is automatically "fair". but I am sure that what she means by "fair" is "consistent with my extremist agenda".
Pelosi calls U.S. deficit proposal "unacceptable"
WASHINGTON Nov 10 (Reuters) - Outgoing U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday a draft deficit-reduction proposal from a presidential commission is "simply unacceptable" -- a sign many Democrats are uncomfortable with its envisioned benefit and spending cuts.
"Any viable proposal from the president's fiscal commission must strengthen our economy, but it must do so in a fair way," Pelosi said in a statement. "This proposal is simply unacceptable."
More (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN286920101110)
-
Sure, let's stick it to as broad a swathe of the middle class as we can by taking away the mortgage interest deduction. Not to mention just about quintuple the current depth of the hole the housing market is in.
No doubt Pelosi and her creatures would LOVE that part.
-
Seriously, just give me back all the money I've paid in. It's obvious I'm never going to see it at the present rate.
:werd:
I never expected to see it anyway, that's what some pundits & my college professors told me years ago. As long as they don't raise the age that you can withdraw from IRA's & 401(k)'s I should be fine without SS. It would still be nice to get that money back.
-
Sure, let's stick it to as broad a swathe of the middle class as we can by taking away the mortgage interest deduction. Not to mention just about quintuple the current depth of the hole the housing market is in.
No doubt Pelosi and her creatures would LOVE that part.
I don't think they want to completely eliminate the mortgage deduction. From what I had seen, they want to eliminate it over a certain amount.
-
I don't think they want to completely eliminate the mortgage deduction. From what I had seen, they want to eliminate it over a certain amount.
That is already in place.....I don't know what the present cap is, but over a certain income (which is rather high I believe) you don't get it.......
Therefore the proposal appears to refer to eliminating it entirely.....which would not have a positive impact on an already struggling housing industry....
For all of this deficit panel "window dressing".......you notice that the obvious solution never is diiscussed.....
SIMPLY STOP SPENDING!!
doc
-
But the plan would not count any savings from Social Security toward meeting the overall deficit-reduction goal set by Mr. Obama, reflecting the chairmen’s sensitivity to liberal critics who have complained that Social Security should be fixed only for its own sake, not to balance the nation’s books.
Actually I could agree with them on that point, given the fact it's a pretty safe bet it isn't going away in the foreseeable future. If it's going to be taxed separately (FICA) then it ought to be out of reach of greedy Congresscritters for any other purpose.
The recommendation on eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, ballot box poison that it may be for either party, apparently wasn't across the board, but for mortgages over $500K. Probably still a political 'No sale,' but not nearly as radical as it sounded at first, either.
-
That is already in place.....I don't know what the present cap is, but over a certain income (which is rather high I believe) you don't get it.......
Therefore the proposal appears to refer to eliminating it entirely.....which would not have a positive impact on an already struggling housing industry....
For all of this deficit panel "window dressing".......you notice that the obvious solution never is diiscussed.....
SIMPLY STOP SPENDING!!
doc
I think you're right. But which gives a person more money in their pocket, the interest deduction or dropping the overall tax rate that is in the proposal?
Overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes. For individuals and families, eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction. Significantly reduce income tax rates, with the top rate dropping to 23 percent from 35 percent.
WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111005009.html)
-
Kinda depends where you are in the home-buying amortization plan.
That tax deduction drops steadily, but slowly at first, the farther you move along in your homebuying plan.
The mortgage interest deduction is written to favor those who buy and sell homes often, thus being "early" in the amortization plan. You're paying very little on the principal and a lot in interest, so the deduction is higher.
I'd favor reduction of the tax rate - say to about 15% - if they want to take away my mortgage interest deduction. I'd come out ahead in the long run, I think.
-
National Fiscal Commission Would Eliminate Federal Funding for Public Broadcasting (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/national-fiscal-commission-seeks-cuts-np)
What a tease. :p
-
:agree: Since our house has been paid off for over ten years, I'd rather have my income tax rate reduced.
-
SS should be phased out of existance over the next 20 years.
People already drawing SS should continue to draw it at the current rate, not to exceed 15 years from today.
Those age 50 and older, only receive 50% of the current rate and can't draw a dime until age 70. No payments to exceed 15 years from the time of retirement.
Folks under 50... Sorry no SSI for you. You don't get your money back, but you would no longer have to pay into it.
-
SS should be phased out of existance over the next 20 years.
People already drawing SS should continue to draw it at the current rate, not to exceed 15 years from today.
Those age 50 and older, only receive 50% of the current rate and can't draw a dime until age 70. No payments to exceed 15 years from the time of retirement.
Folks under 50... Sorry no SSI for you. You don't get your money back, but you would no longer have to pay into it.
I think that is similar to what President Bush wanted done, but not those exact ages.
-
SS should be phased out of existance over the next 20 years.
People already drawing SS should continue to draw it at the current rate, not to exceed 15 years from today.
Those age 50 and older, only receive 50% of the current rate and can't draw a dime until age 70. No payments to exceed 15 years from the time of retirement.
Folks under 50... Sorry no SSI for you. You don't get your money back, but you would no longer have to pay into it.
Can't say that I go along with your plan exactly as stated but I think you are on the right track.
It's a ponzi scheme that I think was planned to fail at sometime anyway.....just like the resent housing mess.
-
I think that is similar to what President Bush wanted done, but not those exact ages.
IIRC when SSI was 1st implemented, the retirement age was 65, but the average life expectancy was only 63 for men (remember, not many women worked outside of the home back then). Not many were expected to draw it at all, and those that did weren't expected to draw it for very long. Certainly not the 20+ years as often happens these days.
It was an insurance plan, NOT a financial retirement plan. But over the course of decades it morphed into the bankrupt FUBAR that now exists.
-
IIRC when SSI was 1st implemented, the retirement age was 65, but the average life expectancy was only 63 for men (remember, not many women worked outside of the home back then). Not many were expected to draw it at all, and those that did weren't expected to draw it for very long. Certainly not the 20+ years as often happens these days.
It was an insurance plan, NOT a financial retirement plan. But over the course of decades it morphed into the bankrupt FUBAR that now exists.
It is a Ponzi scheme, but it is far from bankrupt. There would have been plenty of money for SS if it had not been raided and left with IOUs. This was the first year they took in less than they paid out, I believe. Social Security itself still has tons of money in the form of federal IOUs. The problem is paying back those IOUs, that is why there is the sudden rush to find a fix. Any fix that is arrived at, will end up screwing everyone that has paid into it.
-
It is a Ponzi scheme, but it is far from bankrupt. There would have been plenty of money for SS if it had not been raided and left with IOUs. This was the first year they took in less than they paid out, I believe. Social Security itself still has tons of money in the form of federal IOUs. The problem is paying back those IOUs, that is why there is the sudden rush to find a fix. Any fix that is arrived at, will end up screwing everyone that has paid into it.
Those IOUs are why I consider the system bankrupt. The Fed just devalued the dollar again to the sum of some 600 billion. IMO those IOUs will never actually be paid back into the system.
I for one am not planning on drawing a single dime of SSI even though I have been paying into it for about 30 years. It simply will not exist in any meaningful fashion by the time I retire, yet I am still forced at virtual gun point to keep paying into it.
-
Can't say that I go along with your plan exactly as stated but I think you are on the right track.
It's a ponzi scheme that I think was planned to fail at sometime anyway.....just like the resent housing mess.
How would you change the plan I listed?
-
Those IOUs are why I consider the system bankrupt. The Fed just devalued the dollar again to the sum of some 600 billion. IMO those IOUs will never actually be paid back into the system.
I for one am not planning on drawing a single dime of SSI even though I have been paying into it for about 30 years. It simply will not exist in any meaningful fashion by the time I retire, yet I am still forced at virtual gun point to keep paying into it.
The government will issue you credits with which you can pay your taxes on the income you do have. :argh:
-
The government will issue you credits with which you can pay your taxes on the income you do have. :argh:
DAMN IT!!!!!!
Don't give them any ideas.
-
How would you change the plan I listed?
To get serious about a plan we'd both need to see some numbers and do some figuring on at what ages and amounts to use for cutoffs of paying into the system and when to phase it out altogether.
It would get very complicated but I think it could be worked out on less than 2,000 pages.
This should have been done 40+ years ago but the democrats would have lost the boogie man they used to scare people.
It's a known fact that DUmmies will not provide for themselves so some form of forced government retirement plan will have to be used but what we have now is....uh....uh....ain't gonna work.
-
:werd:
I never expected to see it anyway, that's what some pundits & my college professors told me years ago. As long as they don't raise the age that you can withdraw from IRA's & 401(k)'s I should be fine without SS. It would still be nice to get that money back.
Don't worry your pretty little head about that 401k/IRA Ralphie baby, they have plans for that too. Comrades in the Andes need your pesos!! Redistribution now! Soak the rich!! You greedy capitalist pig!! The barbecue and spits are being readied now. :sarcasm: