561–570 of 835 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point we have to rethink what "contributing to the system" means. What are web developers designing ads for online casinos contributing?
> What are web developers designing ads for online casinos contributing? In the context of this discussion, they're contributing tax revenue. Very important for pension plans!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make it "regressive". The untaxed dollars after 160k don't count towards benefits. Rather, the tax is extremely progressive due to the various "bends". As you contribute more into the system, they make the per-dollar value of your contributions go from .9 to .3 to .15. Anyway, Social Security is fine. It's Medicare/Medicaid that's going to nuke the budget.
The payroll tax is an income tax with the following brackets: 0-147k: 12.4% 147k+: 0% The number goes down at the higher income bracket, which means you pay less % of your money in payroll taxes the more you make. That is the very definition of regressive.
That aside, as a matter of policy, uncapping the taxes would destroy the popular notion that the amount of Social Security you receive reflects your contributions. If the public believed it was literally just income tax, and if there was no cap there would be no reason to not just adjust the income tax by that amount, it would be subject to the same politics as income taxes and could be cut on a whim. Treating it differently than income taxes, even when it is not, is essential for its survival. If they didn’t cap it, top income tax rates would be >60%, and there isn’t much appetite for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, I have no particular knowledge of French macro economic policies, but a tax deduction is not "giving money". It is "not taking money". Your framing assumes that corporate or individual earnings belong to the government and the government can decide to allow the money to be "given" to the taxpayer. Wh…
Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be making an assumption that rich old people can consume their wealth. I suspect the reality is that they cannot and in many cases are obligate savers. This creates a problem for the economy as individuals may lack the capital to start new businesses, innovate, or grow the next generation. Having a nation of renters renting from rich old oligarchs is not efficient. some redistribution may be necessary.
This is the idea again that wealthy people hoard their money, and it must be liberated to benefit the economy. The fact is, their money is not stored in Scrooge McDuck cash vaults. It's all invested in the economy.
This occurred in the Great Depression where inequality rose and in turn debt loads. The fed has papered over this problem by simply printing more money. However historically, the US faired better following the massive federal wealth redistribution that was ww2.
The US government can’t afford ww2 style spending programs, and increasing evidence shows that money printing isn’t helping the economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding was that almost all countries with advanced economies are experiencing negative growth in producing children. So even if you are right about the nuance in age, go look at Japan. Their population is shrinking.
Purely economically, only a total moron would have a child. Child labor has been outlawed and society says the (grown) child is their cash cow not yours, so the retirement from taxing the kid is spread across everyone else. Meanwhile you're asked to pay the lions share of the investment for everybody else to cash out on. So the name of the game is to let everybody else have the kids and free-ride the fuck out of that…
except the evidence seems to point towards kids being a net drain, even in preindustrial societies.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/10/was_having_kids.htm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were paid to other retirees at the time. Some excess dollars were loaned to the government for general spending, which put Treasury bonds into the "social security trust fund." You in turn received credit that entitles you to receive similar payments when you retire, paid for by then-working taxpayers and by repayment of those bonds (which also comes from tax revenue.) As other posters mention, the democraticall…
Just so you know, I would be happy to end the arrangement, even though it would mean losing my Social Security benefits, which I should come into soon. I think it’s a terrible system. I am just having trouble understanding your terminology.
I wouldn't describe myself has having "paid in" to SNAP, or disaster relief funds, etc. Just as I wouldn't describe myself as having "paid in" to social security. I simply paid an income tax at the time like any other. If I'm lucky, when I'm in need some other poor sap will be paying it forward as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just because people died young. The mode (most common) age of death was over 75 in France for men in 1930. I'm not sure how WWII factors into that. It's now about 82, eyeballing it (yes, still higher). https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPU_1204_0683--the-mos... People were not "old" and dying at appreciably higher rates given they reached age 60 back then. The general premise that there's a lot of rich old…
My understanding was that almost all countries with advanced economies are experiencing negative growth in producing children. So even if you are right about the nuance in age, go look at Japan. Their population is shrinking.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you assume that most government programs have on the order of a very few % misspending or outright fraud (which is the case, aside from fiascos like the pandemic stimulus payments) then you just have to assume that the real decisions to be made are the "should we have this program at all" or "do rates need to increase / benefits need to decrease". The auditing and details will get worked out by an existing governm…
There is no reason to believe government programs are ran efficiently or without large amounts of fraud and corruption. There has to be a reason it costs governments (including government contracts) several times as much to do things compared to the private sector and non-profits.
I've dealt with both commercial contracts and government contracts.
Commercial contracts are more lucrative with overhead rates that are truly illegal on govt contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> deficit that was literally created by giving money to large companies and rich people in the form of tax deductions, I have no particular knowledge of French macro economic policies, but a tax deduction is not "giving money". It is "not taking money". Your framing assumes that corporate or individual earnings belong to the government and the government can decide to allow the money to be "given" to the taxpayer. Wh…
Not taking money that otherwise would be taken absolutely is giving money. Let me know if the government decides to absolve you of all taxes if you don't think at the end of your year that you've been given money. Also that's conveniently the narrative that Macron's party would adopt were it the other way (read: when they "give" a one-off cheque to students or poor people). Accounting tricks have broad shoulders to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "lol" needs to be expanded a bit to be convincing. I can't see how it is not the same thing. The employer looks at the total cost of employment and works out if it's worth hiring someone. If that cost is 10% higher because of super, that means there is 10% less to go to (direct) wages. Now granted, that will differ at different points in the labour market. For minimum wage jobs, I agree that employers wouldn'…
I haven't changed jobs much in my career, but when talking about pay I still find people need to be explicit if they are talking about including or excluding super. Most jobs advertise the pay excluding super, but some will quote total package.