Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

cbsnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–117 of 117 posts

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#111

Post by api »

mythrwy wrote: post #93
api wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll receive social security. Benefits will be in tomorrow's inflated dollars but at today's amounts. I've been predicting huge inflation for a long time for the simple reason that housing has inflated so much. Housing is so unreasonable and house prices are so sticky (people hate to take a loss and most are on loans) that the only reasonable way out of the housing affordability crisis is for the rest of the econom…

I don't know why you are getting downvoted. I think this is what will happen as well. It also helps solve the pension crisis. Not that it's a "fair" solution but it is a solution.

It's a more politically viable solution than large tax increases or nominal benefit cuts and a much less painful solution than default. It also "solves" the impending student loan crisis by writing down all those loans.

Maybe people didn't get my rationale around housing. Put more simply I see housing inflation as the leading edge of a giant wave of inflation. Housing has inflated first because QE money first went to banks and coupled with historically low interest rates this allowed banks to pump massive amounts of money into the housing market via cheap mortgages. So the housing market is where the big wave of post-crash re-inflation money went. But houses do have a turnover rate, so the money is not going to stay there forever. All those people who made 200-600% profit on their homes will sell those homes and use the money for old age care and other personal expenses or pass it on to their children who will likely spend it. Housing may fall a bit but it's more likely that the rest of the economy will just inflate to meet it.

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#112

Post by krapp »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #110
krapp wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Consider the person that could have, but didnt, live a lavish lifestyle and instead responsibly saved. Then a benefit (which they paid into, and maybe rely upon) is removed after the fact? Bad news. Such a person wouldn't be able to live a "lavish lifestyle" with the benefits alone - that's not what they're for. And if they saved up throughout their entire life then they wouldn't depend on those benefits in the firs…

If I am paying into SS in my 20s and expect to get, say, $1000 per month in my 60s, and I responsibly design my 401k savings etc around that promise, and then have it taken away because I saved more than the average person then I will have a $1000 hole in my budget . Itd be no different than a bank keeping the contents of my savings account and giving me the excuse "we changed the rules"

Except Social Security isn't a bank account, nor is it really a "promise," at least not a promise of a specific return on investment.

One could argue that designing your financial expectations around that program remaining exactly as is for the forseeable future given that history wouldn't be reasonable - any number of events could lead to that $1000 hole in your budget. Who's "keeping your savings" when stocks fall or inflation rises?

But, if the feasibility of the Social Security program as a whole depends on restructuring the program, as it has in the past, then I believe it's better for society that those cuts be distributed to those who can best afford them.

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#113

Post by mjevans »

magduf wrote: post #100
ahoy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you poll those same voters on individual social welfare programs, particularly Social Security, you'll find they support them. It's really upsetting.

If the voters are so dumb that they're voting directly against their own stated interests, then maybe they shouldn't have those programs.

Maybe we should actually have a meaningful test that is based on scientific evidence of understanding things like consequences and the current (at the time) structure of the government.

Failing the test, BTW, doesn't mean an individual can't vote (ever, just until they re-pass "high school"): it means society has failed them and they now qualify for extended schooling to correct their lack of education. Including provided room and board while they are studying as well as medical care to correct for sources of learning defects (such as poor vision, etc).

If someone is too impaired to be able to pass high school in that supporting environment then they should be 'retired' the same way someone with a more obvious disability is.

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#114

Post by rayiner »

vannevar wrote: post #98
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the real point of the article is that "according to the OECD, "the US system [is] progressive." The most salient feature of the U.S. tax system is that "middle-income US households face unusually low tax rates"-- i.e. the system is highly progressive. The U.S. tax system is progressive well into the top 1% of income earners (by contrast, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark have a relatively flat tax structure after abou…

Read it all the way to the end. Again, from the article: "Should the US system be even more progressive than it already is, bearing in mind the skewness of the pre-tax distribution, especially at the very top? Maybe it should--but a steeper tax-band schedule is a dumb way to improve fairness and raise more revenue." A progressive tax system is progressive in effect , not just in form. The author is saying that people…

From your quote: "Should the US system be even more progressive than it already is..." The only way to read that is as acknowledging that the system already is progressive. Indeed, according to the title of the article, it is "unusually progressive."

The part about tax-band schedules is not an assertion that the system is not progressive "in effect." (That theory cannot be reconciled with the data presented in the article, which looks at taxes paid, not tax bands.) Instead the author is saying that if we want to make the system "even more progressive than it already is"--which he does not concede we should, he leaves that as a "maybe"--then we should be looking deeper than tax bands. (And he points out that the possibility of loopholes and preferential treatment does not indicate that the U.S. system is not progressive, because other countries do that too.)

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#115

Post by chiefalchemist »

eximius wrote: post #53
chiefalchemist wrote: post #36

We have the resources. What we lack are necessary priorities and the resolve to fix them. The latest DoD budget is $700 billion. Russia's DoD budget is approx 10% of that. That's not a typo 10%. China might not be an ally - in the historical European sense - but given our symbiotic economic relationship it would like take quite a bit for a true military conflict to break out between the two countries. Even if our DoD…

I've fantasized about this as a solution before. If you tell the military that in 10 years you're cutting their budget to $250 billion and somehow manage to instill in them that a) you're serious and b) you will not repeal your decision, I have no doubt they would successfully adapt (just like every industry who complains about regulations have ultimately adapted). I am curious, however, in HOW they would adapt. I wo…

2 wks ago on one of the NPR shows these was an interview with one of the members of Congress, Dem from VA I think. He has something to do with the Russia hacking investigation.

In the middle of the interview he mentions the DoD budget and more or less says - as an active member of Congress can - we're wasting too much money on 20th century warfare and not enough on 21st century (cyber) capabilities.

General + POTUS Eisenhower is in heaven laughing, "I warned you. I told you so. You morons."

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#116

Post by chiefalchemist »

lamarpye wrote: post #89
jakelarkin wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not wrong but for the sake of argument perhaps its better to look at the DoD budget through the political lens ... its a corrupt jobs program in which the government funnels money to a broad swath of American states and counties, mostly via defense contractors. Yes its incredible dumb and inefficient but many millions of people earn their livelihood, healthcare and pensions by building useless bombs, so its ha…

It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if the cut the US military budget dramatically. I am of the opinion that it would decrease the world stability and millions of people would die. But YMMV.

When did it become our job to police the world? Especially when it creates blowback (e.g., UBL).

You might be right. But the USA's DoD budget is more than the NEXT 10 countries COMBINED. So we're VERY afraid? And we're alone with that having that fear?

Maybe we find what we're looking for?

Re: Social Security says system's costs will exceed income this year

#117

Post by eximius »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #115
eximius wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've fantasized about this as a solution before. If you tell the military that in 10 years you're cutting their budget to $250 billion and somehow manage to instill in them that a) you're serious and b) you will not repeal your decision, I have no doubt they would successfully adapt (just like every industry who complains about regulations have ultimately adapted). I am curious, however, in HOW they would adapt. I wo…

2 wks ago on one of the NPR shows these was an interview with one of the members of Congress, Dem from VA I think. He has something to do with the Russia hacking investigation. In the middle of the interview he mentions the DoD budget and more or less says - as an active member of Congress can - we're wasting too much money on 20th century warfare and not enough on 21st century (cyber) capabilities. General + POTUS E…

I mean, that is also true, but if we take 50% of our '20th century' budget and spend it on '21st century' stuff, we still will spend too much.

Put another way, inefficient allocation is an orthogonal problem to giving too much to the allocator.

Post reply on HN