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

Thanks For Paying Taxes. Here's A Receipt.

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–194 of 194 posts

Re: Thanks For Paying Taxes. Here's A Receipt.

#191

Post by grandalf »

gnaritas wrote: post #189
grandalf wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. See the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme Insurance is not a scheme "destined to collapse" when it runs out of new investors. Insurance is perfectly sustainable. In fact, some of the oldest companies in business today are insurance companies. Social security is currently "designed to collapse" as the trustees report has warned for years. The program will run out of money sometime fairly…

That link supports me, not you. As I already said, Social Security doesn't promise anyone a profit, as long as benefits are managed properly, it can continue indefinitely. It specifically relies on people dying before they receive back what they put in. Social Security is perfectly sustainable, they simply have to cut benefits to an appropriate level or raise the retirement age. You clearly have some personal bias ag…

How is it sustainable if it has to be redefined every few years? How is it sustainable if it will need to be turned into a welfare program resulting in all the money many of us have put into it not being returned at all?

Re: Thanks For Paying Taxes. Here's A Receipt.

#192

Post by gnaritas »

grandalf wrote: post #191
gnaritas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link supports me, not you. As I already said, Social Security doesn't promise anyone a profit, as long as benefits are managed properly, it can continue indefinitely. It specifically relies on people dying before they receive back what they put in. Social Security is perfectly sustainable, they simply have to cut benefits to an appropriate level or raise the retirement age. You clearly have some personal bias ag…

How is it sustainable if it has to be redefined every few years? How is it sustainable if it will need to be turned into a welfare program resulting in all the money many of us have put into it not being returned at all?

Lifespans aren't static, nor can the retirement age be. Continual adjustments have to be expected. The whole point of the program was to provide income for old people the last few years of their lives, not to allow them to live for 30 years after retirement.

On your last point, you're simply making that up. Assuming you live long enough to reach retirement age, you will get benefits. The idea that you won't get benefits is based on absurd projections that wrongly assume the retirement age will never change. That's simply not going to happen, benefits/age will simply be adjusted to compensate and keep the program for those within a few years of the average lifespan, as it was intended.

You've fallen for political scare tactics of those opposed to the very idea of social security because they're opposed to all government assistance and anything even slightly socialist. Benefits simply have to be adjusted so payouts don't exceed payins and we're not using debt to support people. For the boomer generation, that sucks, because they're huge and gen X isn't. For gen X, that's great, because they're small and gen Y is huge.

Re: Thanks For Paying Taxes. Here's A Receipt.

#193

Post by anamax »

grandalf wrote: post #184
anamax wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as the finances, as I understand things, simply raising the cap on income would extend things out a bit, FICA doesn't get collected past 105k or something. Since benefits are roughly related to FICA, extending the cap doesn't help much. It helps some, because the benefits system is progressive, in that folks who contribute a lot get less return on their contributions than folks who contribute just a little,…

The rich at the time might very well have opposed having to pay the 1% social security tax. The inception of the program was based on a variety of too good to be true premises, the 1% payroll tax being the most notable, so I interpret the cap more as a symptom of this fantasy... and possibly a consideration of the stigma attached to welfare programs in those days.

I understated things a bit - it wasn't just the originators, but SS advocates, at least until recently.

If you want to remove the cap, then either you're willing to pay Ross Perot $500k/year in benefits or you're going to have uncapped taxes and capped benefits, that is, another 15% tax.

Do you really think that rich people today won't object to another 15% tax?

Post reply on HN