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

Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–69 of 69 posts

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#61

Post by Steko »

smsm42 wrote: post #55
Steko wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an interactive Social Security reformer, it's a year and a half old but the basic math still holds: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230418640457639... Anyone who thinks Social Security is in crisis is misinformed. It's easily fixable for the foreseeable future without touching benefits. Remove the cap for high earners but keep the current benefit limits.

Since the benefits are capped, Social Security can be fixed by raising taxes, of course. This would mean abandoning all pretense that Social Security is some kind of self-paying insurance/pension program but it is pretty much done by now anyway. Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years, which means to pay for it you'd need to double the taxes - which is what I mean by confiscat…

"Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years"

Besides the fact that 70 year projections are basically exercises in futility, this statement is not accurate.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Under current law, projected Medicare cost rises to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, largely due to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then to 6.7 percent in 2086

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#62

Post by gte910h »

Steko wrote: post #51
gte910h wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the left has taken this approach in America, and let the right repeatedly pick the worst labels for EVERYTHING from the left's perspective. It's called framing.

There's framing debates and there's Bill Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word 'is'. Sometimes you got to know when you're doing the former and when you're tilting at windmills. I also think the right's perceived advantage here is heavily overstated.

The Bill Clinton "is" thing is a bit like the hot coffee lawsuit: When you look at the details, it's quite a bit less silly then the news made it seem

The Paula Jones lawyers deposed Clinton earlier with a ridiculous definition of sexual relations, the judged chopped it down way too far, and Clinton didn't answer one more bit then he had to because they kept leaking shit, and no one answers more than they have to in a deposition.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-105hdoc311/pdf/GPO-CDO... for the grand jury testimony about all this. Look at page 454 by searching to read the start of it.

All that said, yes, there is a point where definition of a word doesn't really matter. So yes, I agree with you, George Bush hiked the taxes on Jan 1 2013 on the upper class due to a expiration clause on a tax bill, and the Republicans opted not to renew the payroll tax holiday Obama got in exchange for a 2 year extention of the Bush Tax Cuts. They did not agree to extend these cuts when he did not agree to continued extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the highest wage income earners.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#63

Post by malyk »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #24
rednukleus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose to "fix" Social Security?

Index it to inflation rather than wages. Choose a fixed basket of goods, compute their price in the future, adjust SS accordingly. I.e., cause SS to provide a fixed standard of living, rather than an increasing one. Seniors will always live as well in the future as they do today, they just won't live as well as future wage earners.

Also remove the cap at which you no longer collect SS from payrolls. It's something around $105,000. You don't get taxed for SS on any income past that amount. The SS tax structure is one of the most regressive taxes we have.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#64

Post by outside1234 »

anonymoushn wrote: post #20
rednukleus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose to "fix" Social Security?

In current law it is already fixed. When it runs out of bonds in the "trust fund," it will automatically decrease its payouts to become revenue neutral.

i have a bridge to sell you - interested?

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#65

Post by Steko »

gte910h wrote: post #62
Steko wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's framing debates and there's Bill Clinton arguing about the meaning of the word 'is'. Sometimes you got to know when you're doing the former and when you're tilting at windmills. I also think the right's perceived advantage here is heavily overstated.

The Bill Clinton "is" thing is a bit like the hot coffee lawsuit: When you look at the details, it's quite a bit less silly then the news made it seem The Paula Jones lawyers deposed Clinton earlier with a ridiculous definition of sexual relations, the judged chopped it down way too far, and Clinton didn't answer one more bit then he had to because they kept leaking shit, and no one answers more than they have to in…

I understand and am sympathetic to Clinton but in the eyes of the public he lost and looked silly.

There's two battles progressives (and I am one) can fight here and getting sidetracked into the fight over framing this as a hike or not is not a battle they are going to win. OTOH while there was bipartisan support for letting the payroll tax holiday expire, Obama had proposed extending it for another year and bargained it away to Republicans. So if the GOP wants to call it a hike let them and remind everyone that they wanted this hike more than the Democrats did. That's a battle that's far more winnable.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#66

Post by smsm42 »

Steko wrote: post #60
smsm42 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Bush is to blame for everything. It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now and did nothing to reign in spending. Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop. >>>> decreased tax revenues -> deficit This is only partially true - IIRC, CBO estimates are about 24% of the Bush-era deficits were caused by tax cuts. The rest is spe…

"It's not like Obama had control over the budget for 4 years now" Because he's a dictator? "and did nothing to reign in spending. " Slowest increase in spending since Eisenhower? "Here I was naively hoping there's some point where blaming Bush has to stop. Of course it will never stop." Because it will never stop being true that he's responsible for the current fiscal mess? I'm sorry it's an 'inconvenient truth" for…

>>>> Because he's a dictator?

Because Bush was a dictator, yes. Obama is the same level of dictator as Bush were.

>>>> Slowest increase in spending since Eisenhower?

"Reigning in" does not mean "increase". Especially when we have trillion deficit. If you have budget in surplus - fine, increasing spending may be kind of OK. If you have trillion deficit - "we are deep in the hole, but we keep digging slower" is not enough.

>>> I'm sorry it's an 'inconvenient truth" for you that Bush sucked and got us in this mess.

Bush sucked 4 years ago. This mess is still with us and only got worse since. I understand Obama can not be blamed for anything because he is the Saint Lightworker, but I still can't take it seriously. If you blame Bush for Bush time, blame Obama for Obama time. Otherwise you just sound like an apologist.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#67

Post by smsm42 »

Steko wrote: post #61
smsm42 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the benefits are capped, Social Security can be fixed by raising taxes, of course. This would mean abandoning all pretense that Social Security is some kind of self-paying insurance/pension program but it is pretty much done by now anyway. Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years, which means to pay for it you'd need to double the taxes - which is what I mean by confiscat…

"Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years" Besides the fact that 70 year projections are basically exercises in futility, this statement is not accurate. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html Under current law, projected Medicare cost rises to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, largely due to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then to 6.7 percent in 2086

CBO here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/93xx... has very different picture. I think the figures you have do not include the raise in medical costs per individual.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#68

Post by Steko »

smsm42 wrote: post #67
Steko wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Medicare is much worse - it is projected to grow to almost 20% GDP next 70 years" Besides the fact that 70 year projections are basically exercises in futility, this statement is not accurate. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html Under current law, projected Medicare cost rises to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, largely due to the growth in the number of beneficiaries, and then to 6.7 percent in 2086

CBO here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/93xx... has very different picture. I think the figures you have do not include the raise in medical costs per individual.

The trustee report assumes benefits will stop being paid when the trust fund runs out of money and cost will either be made to conform or services rationed appropriately. The CBO just draws a trend line on health care costs and assumes they go up forever and we'll always pay them. I think it's somewhat possible that the US will look more like the rest of the world in terms of costs as time passes. It's also very possible that we may end up paying radically more for senior care than we do now in 70 years but that's something democracies continue to decide for themselves. There's no blank check being written today about health care in 2083.

Re: Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

#69

Post by anonymoushn »

outside1234 wrote: post #64
anonymoushn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In current law it is already fixed. When it runs out of bonds in the "trust fund," it will automatically decrease its payouts to become revenue neutral.

i have a bridge to sell you - interested?

I'm not sure what I've said to suggest that I'd like to buy a bridge (presumably contained in a dry region of a landlocked state). The discussion is about fixes to a perceived problem, but the problem will fix itself if the legislature does precisely nothing. I expect it is easier to get it to accomplish nothing than to accomplish any particular other solution.
Post reply on HN