Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Consider this: the boomers have the votes to force a tax hike to pay for their hard earned benefits. That's reality. Now, when the next generation is ready to retire they are going to want the honest return on what they paid in to support the boomers, and at that time they will have the votes. And so it goes. Expect higher taxes.
I have been thinking about the 90% inheritance tax the OP proposed. How about a variation of that where the estate reimburses Social Security and Medicare for all of the money drawn during one's lifetime, plus interest? If the estate is worth less than what was used then all of the estate goes back to the government for reimbursement.
Consider this: the boomers have the votes to force a tax hike to pay for their hard earned benefits. That's reality. Now, when the next generation is ready to retire they are going to want the honest return on what they paid in to support the boomers, and at that time they will have the votes. And so it goes. Expect higher taxes.
Popular wisdom assumes there are but three possible solutions to the Medicare financial problem:
1. Increase taxes
2. Reduce benefits
3. Find a high paying, safe investment source for Medicare funds.
All of these "solutions" either are unacceptable, impossible or both, which is why no solution has been found. There is a fourth solution, which has not been discussed and which can be found at [Mod cut
Last edited by Waterlily; 09-04-2008 at 02:09 PM..
Reason: no blog sites or signatures
The comitteee that studied society of rmore than a year under Senator Breaux came to the conclusion that either you reduce benefits or rasie payroll tax alot. In the end they came to no real solution as none want to sponsor a bill that would lose them their office.
I wouldn't mind the dissolution of SS, but repay me and everyone else still alive, every nickle that was stolen from our paychecks minus any payments already recieved...with interest.
Well, we all know that the younger generations are paying for the older generations medicare and social security. By the time the younger generation will retire, there will be nothing left for us as the deficits will be too much. How about a compromise? Since the younger generation is footing the bill for the older generation, we should put a 90% inheritance tax on those who use social security/medicare. That way it funds back to the younger generation instead of abusing them. What do you think?
90% inheritance tax if you accept social security payments? My parents lived frugally thier whole lives, saved and paid off their house etc. and are now retired. They worked blue collar jobs, never made a ton of cash. So you propose to take their assets (an accrued social security benefit they paid money towards for 40+ years) or to hammer what they worked and saved for to help their family get ahead.
Sorry but,
1) That's theft.
2) Talk about killing any sense of savings in the US, why save...the government will take it all later....spend spend spend and live beyond your means? Not working so well for our economy right now.
It ticked my parents off enough that we had trouble getting student loans because my parents owned thier house by driving old old cars, clipping coupons and working the occasional 2nd job.
Basically, you are enacting brutal additional taxation upon anyone that works for a living and acquires assets over their lifetime. This is your "target group" for saving social security?
I applaud you for at least throwing something out for discussion. What do you think at this point?
I have been thinking about the 90% inheritance tax the OP proposed. How about a variation of that where the estate reimburses Social Security and Medicare for all of the money drawn during one's lifetime, plus interest? If the estate is worth less than what was used then all of the estate goes back to the government for reimbursement.
The inherent assumption here is that people won't change their behaviors in reaction to this. Additionally, I'm not sure it's even constitutional...being basically an unlawful siezure of property. Can you think of any unintened consquences to a law like this (Which would and could not pass).
An amazing number of socialists on this forum, have you guys studied what happens to productivity etc. in a strong socialist environment? (Instead of a hybrid system like we have?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
It's not going to be like that
