U.S. News - California governor calls for higher taxes, 4-day state workweek to fill $16 billion gap (houses, to buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since all "money" is baseless in modern times, the only value behind a dollar is trust ... There are a bazillion ways to manipulate trust. You'll all get by. The elite need their proles to satisfy their obsession for maintaining a sense of wealth and control. It will be feudal. But you'll have toys to amuse and distract yourselves as you fade off into the sunset.
Social insurance is currently pretending to have about 5% of GDP more than it collects. The unfunded liability or Medicare is 4% of GDP over the next 75 years, Social Security is another 1%. Of course, that won't be collected evenly. The federal government currently collects 15% of GDP in revenue. Take whatever you pay and tack another 1/3 (be sure to include both your share and the employer's share of payroll taxes) on to that number to fund social welfare insurance. Right now I pay about 26%, 12% SE tax and 14% effective federal income tax. If you let the Bush tax cuts and the Obama "Let's bankrupt it faster" payroll tax cuts both expire we'd be about half way to funding social insurance. The other half I suppose is going to have to be made up with cuts. Oh, and then we've got the other 8% of so of GDP the federal government spends every year on other things beyond the money it collects, aka the deficit.
Basically, if you want to revenue your way out of it, you're looking at increasing federal tax revenue from 15% to 28% of GDP. It ain't gonna happen. I cannot afford to pay close to 50% in federal taxes. The bottom 50% that doesn't pay income taxes needs to start paying them, Bush and Obama payroll tax cuts need to expire, social security and medicare need to be cut by $20 trillion, and then we have to deal with the deficit either with cuts or higher taxes. Now, who wants to vote for the guy that proposes that? And that's why we're doomed to join the PIGS.
The one part that you are leaving out of the Asian systems is that they are very strict meritocracies. The children that go to universities are the very best students. In the U.S. we essentially have universities and colleges for everyone almost in spite of their lack of abilities.
In all of the countries that surpass the U.S. in terms of Math and Science there are two track systems in which a sizable proportion of students don't even compete in the traditional academic system. This is essentially the same dichotomy between private and public schools in that the private (and in a lot of cases the charter schools) get to cherry pick the students that they want.
This is quite true, and it's one thing from the Asian model that I think that we should carry over to the US system.
By the time that a kid is 14 or so, it should be somewhat prevalent where their strengths and weaknesses lie: if a kid reads and writes at a college level, but struggles with basic algebra, then why continue to try to force them towards learning calculus and trigonometry? Let them focus on their strengths and excel in ways that they have a natural propensity to excel, rather than forcing them to suffer D's on their report card and a lowered GPA because they are in a rigid system that doesn't allow for individual strengths and weaknesses.
In Japan, for example, they start splitting people off towards preparatory schools in middle school to better equip them to make a living in a field that they have strengths in. That kid who has no natural propensity for math will likely never work as a statistician for the federal government, but he may end up being a speechwriter for the prime minister. There are certainly other flaws in their system, but, this is one of the better models, IMHO.
Social insurance is currently pretending to have about 5% of GDP more than it collects. The unfunded liability or Medicare is 4% of GDP over the next 75 years, Social Security is another 1%. Of course, that won't be collected evenly. The federal government currently collects 15% of GDP in revenue. Take whatever you pay and tack another 1/3 (be sure to include both your share and the employer's share of payroll taxes) on to that number to fund social welfare insurance. Right now I pay about 26%, 12% SE tax and 14% effective federal income tax. If you let the Bush tax cuts and the Obama "Let's bankrupt it faster" payroll tax cuts both expire we'd be about half way to funding social insurance. The other half I suppose is going to have to be made up with cuts. Oh, and then we've got the other 8% of so of GDP the federal government spends every year on other things beyond the money it collects, aka the deficit.
Basically, if you want to revenue your way out of it, you're looking at increasing federal tax revenue from 15% to 28% of GDP. It ain't gonna happen. I cannot afford to pay close to 50% in federal taxes. The bottom 50% that doesn't pay income taxes needs to start paying them, Bush and Obama payroll tax cuts need to expire, social security and medicare need to be cut by $20 trillion, and then we have to deal with the deficit either with cuts or higher taxes. Now, who wants to vote for the guy that proposes that? And that's why we're doomed to join the PIGS.
And why don't you look at food stamps, Medicaid, and those programs that don't require anyone to have ever paid in?
At least with Medicare and Social Security, those who receive anything had to have paid in for a number of years but you cannot simply look at those two mandatory government "insurance" programs for your cuts.
Social security and Medicare recipients are a limited pool of former workers.
Medicaid, Section 8, SSI, food stamps, and the other welfare programs are available to an unlimited number of people, including those coming from third world nations with their third world birth rates.
Taking care of the long-time taxpaying retiree is not really the problem, it's the fact that a very large number of children and 20 and 30 and 40 year olds are taking out and are not paying in and never will.
This is quite true, and it's one thing from the Asian model that I think that we should carry over to the US system.
By the time that a kid is 14 or so, it should be somewhat prevalent where their strengths and weaknesses lie: if a kid reads and writes at a college level, but struggles with basic algebra, then why continue to try to force them towards learning calculus and trigonometry? Let them focus on their strengths and excel in ways that they have a natural propensity to excel, rather than forcing them to suffer D's on their report card and a lowered GPA because they are in a rigid system that doesn't allow for individual strengths and weaknesses.
In Japan, for example, they start splitting people off towards preparatory schools in middle school to better equip them to make a living in a field that they have strengths in. That kid who has no natural propensity for math will likely never work as a statistician for the federal government, but he may end up being a speechwriter for the prime minister. There are certainly other flaws in their system, but, this is one of the better models, IMHO.
Yes, college is becoming a joke with more and more colleges eliminating all admission standards. It's all about money. It's no longer about a quality product.
If college was limited to only those with very high SAT scores, maybe the taxpayers could afford to pay their way, but you've got illiterates demanding taxpayer provided college and who don't want to pay back their loans.
Yes, college is becoming a joke with more and more colleges eliminating all admission standards. It's all about money. It's no longer about a quality product.
If college was limited to only those with very high SAT scores, maybe the taxpayers could afford to pay their way, but you've got illiterates demanding taxpayer provided college and who don't want to pay back their loans.
How is it you can make a statement like this? I don't think there is any evidence that the good colleges have lowered their standards at all. 100,000 kids a year attend the University of Texas and Texas A&M. Most are from Texas. Demand for these spots is very high, and even if you get in, you may not get into the major you want.
One of our biggest problems today is that too many kids are going to college. And many study for four years and end up working in restaurants, unable to repay their college loans.
And why don't you look at food stamps, Medicaid, and those programs that don't require anyone to have ever paid in?
At least with Medicare and Social Security, those who receive anything had to have paid in for a number of years but you cannot simply look at those two mandatory government "insurance" programs for your cuts.
Social security and Medicare recipients are a limited pool of former workers.
Medicaid, Section 8, SSI, food stamps, and the other welfare programs are available to an unlimited number of people, including those coming from third world nations with their third world birth rates.
Taking care of the long-time taxpaying retiree is not really the problem, it's the fact that a very large number of children and 20 and 30 and 40 year olds are taking out and are not paying in and never will.
Food stamps and Medicaid are not social insurance programs, they are social welfare programs. That distinction aside, Medicare and Social Security are the elephants in the room. Much like unemployment insurance and disability insurance, they are supposed to be separately funded. It's just that they're not. The other social welfare programs are part of the 8% of GDP deficit we have to address either with increased taxes or cuts in spending. The cumulative laundry list (military, infrastructure, funded mandates, alphabet soup of federal agencies, etc, etc) adds up to 8% of GDP. Social Security and Medicare add up to 5% on their lonesome. Both have to be addressed.
Taking care of the long-time taxpaying retiree is a problem. They cost more to take care of than they put in. I have a cousin who has autism and will almost certainly never work. The net drain of a retiree is much smaller than his net drain on social security, but there are a lot more retirees than 20 somethings on permanent social security disability. The "very large number" of children and working-age adults is totally eclipsed by the number of retirees. When social security started, people retired and died shortly thereafter, if they even made it to retirement. They don't do that anymore. It's a wonderful thing that we've literally added twenty years to the life expectancy in the last 80 years, but it also has some very real consequences. In 1935 the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 61.7 years. Most people died before they were of retirement age. Today retirement age is 67 and life expectancy is 78.7. That presents a problem. Suddenly the average person is collecting a pension for 12 years instead of dying before they collect the pension. You have to not only pay the pension but the medical costs. Modern medicine is more expensive and old people, who live 20 years longer than they did before, use a lot of it.
Food stamps and Medicaid are not social insurance programs, they are social welfare programs. That distinction aside, Medicare and Social Security are the elephants in the room. Much like unemployment insurance and disability insurance, they are supposed to be separately funded. It's just that they're not. The other social welfare programs are part of the 8% of GDP deficit we have to address either with increased taxes or cuts in spending. The cumulative laundry list (military, infrastructure, funded mandates, alphabet soup of federal agencies, etc, etc) adds up to 8% of GDP. Social Security and Medicare add up to 5% on their lonesome. Both have to be addressed.
Taking care of the long-time taxpaying retiree is a problem. They cost more to take care of than they put in. I have a cousin who has autism and will almost certainly never work. The net drain of a retiree is much smaller than his net drain on social security, but there are a lot more retirees than 20 somethings on permanent social security disability. The "very large number" of children and working-age adults is totally eclipsed by the number of retirees. When social security started, people retired and died shortly thereafter, if they even made it to retirement. They don't do that anymore. It's a wonderful thing that we've literally added twenty years to the life expectancy in the last 80 years, but it also has some very real consequences. In 1935 the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 61.7 years. Most people died before they were of retirement age. Today retirement age is 67 and life expectancy is 78.7. That presents a problem. Suddenly the average person is collecting a pension for 12 years instead of dying before they collect the pension. You have to not only pay the pension but the medical costs. Modern medicine is more expensive and old people, who live 20 years longer than they did before, use a lot of it.
Actually you're wrong.
The number of retirees is nothing like the exploding birth rate and the retirees are a dwindling population -- even if the lifespan has increased. Remember the retirement age has also gone up.
Even if some of the retirees are getting a higher pension than we think they should, they will get it for a limited number of years. Then what? Then where do your politicians look for money to raid for their massive spending programs?
You can throw every retired person out onto the streets and confiscate all their investments and you will soon be left with nothing for your massive out-of-control government spending.
You simply have to cut spending on the programs that have no limits of new recipients. The welfare programs are bringing in millions of indigents from other countries because all one needs to do is give birth to babies in order to access those programs.
Well, the *good news* is that Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors are severely time-limited. While longevity has increased over the years, all too many draw benefits for a relatively short period of time before assuming room temperature.
It's the same with pensions to a somewhat lesser degree with survivor benefits but not all subscribe to them.
It's about time state employees living high on the hog encounter reality - chop all state salaries by 20%, layoff as many as needed...why should state employees get treatment that is way above the private sector?
And 6th grade teachers should not be making $50-60k, they should be paid $10-15/hr without any benefits because that is what the private sector would pay them.
As a Engineer I have been laid off twice in the last 5 years despite having stellar credentials and experience, the salary in my field is also going down down down each year due to outsourcing... why are state employees immune to this at the expense of everyone else? LAY THEM OFF, CUT THEIR PAY!! We don't want higher taxes.
I worked with the state for many years. Many state workers that I saw goofed off all day, and those with seniority were out of the office more than in. Even lazy secretaries and clerical staff just put in their 20 years and got retirements equivalent to all or nearly all of their final salary. It's a crock.
What I would do though instead of cutting pay, which reverberates through the economy, is cut the state contributions to retirement, and lower the retirement package by a sliding scale, so those farther out get less. And even those right at retirement should probably get a small reduction or some sort of reduction at the beginning of retirement at least. Many retire at 55 or thereabouts and then work another job anyway, at least on a part time basis, so they are able bodied and are sort of gaming the system.
Last edited by HereThereEveryware; 05-18-2012 at 03:49 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
