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.
I have come to the conclusion there is no way to avoid the upcoming cost of our top heavy demographics. The boomers are going to break the bank, and unless we want to let them bankrupt Medicare, Social Security,etc. we need to plan ahead and raise taxes to spread this load out over time.
It is simply not fair for the people who will be bleeding us dry (the boomers) to be voting to lower their taxes repeatedly (Norquist is a boomer, Limbaugh is a boomer, need I say more?), and leave the mess to the Millennials.
We cannot do it solely by axing the government, because those employees, when unemployed, will just start drawing benefits, becoming a net drain. We must raise taxes until we get through this. This needn't be a permanent, thing, but it probably needs to be a 20-30 year plan, otherwise we are going to be hammered.
No fingerpointing is needed. No one in the 1940s expected there to be so many fewer kids relative to the old folks. It just happened, and instead of running form responsibility, we need to embrace it and do right by all our citizens.
I have come to the conclusion there is no way to avoid the upcoming cost of our top heavy demographics. The boomers are going to break the bank, and unless we want to let them bankrupt Medicare, Social Security,etc. we need to plan ahead and raise taxes to spread this load out over time.
It is simply not fair for the people who will be bleeding us dry (the boomers) to be voting to lower their taxes repeatedly (Norquist is a boomer, Limbaugh is a boomer, need I say more?), and leave the mess to the Millennials.
We cannot do it solely by axing the government, because those employees, when unemployed, will just start drawing benefits, becoming a net drain. We must raise taxes until we get through this. This needn't be a permanent, thing, but it probably needs to be a 20-30 year plan, otherwise we are going to be hammered.
No fingerpointing is needed. No one in the 1940s expected there to be so many fewer kids relative to the old folks. It just happened, and instead of running form responsibility, we need to embrace it and do right by all our citizens.
You seem pretty rational, and rational is a good thing in my book.
I do agree with you that there likely is no way out of this cleanly without raising taxes, BUT -- and this is a bigger butt than the First Lady's -- we HAVE to look at spending cuts. There's too much corruption and waste in our government that needs to be eliminated, and too many other programs (i.e. pork) that need to be eliminated. Bigger government is simply more wasteful government, not more efficient government.
Having said that, the FIRST tax I would propose raising is the Social Security tax on earnings. I'm one of the lucky(?) people that actually gets to see the Social Security deduction on his paycheck disappear, and it's usually before Memorial Day. From that point on, it's like getting a 7.625% raise.
What I don't understand is why don't we just continue that tax out to cover ALL earnings, even if it is on a sliding scale? SS would be funded COMPLETELY if we did.
I have come to the conclusion there is no way to avoid the upcoming cost of our top heavy demographics. The boomers are going to break the bank, and unless we want to let them bankrupt Medicare, Social Security,etc. we need to plan ahead and raise taxes to spread this load out over time.
It is simply not fair for the people who will be bleeding us dry (the boomers) to be voting to lower their taxes repeatedly (Norquist is a boomer, Limbaugh is a boomer, need I say more?), and leave the mess to the Millennials.
We cannot do it solely by axing the government, because those employees, when unemployed, will just start drawing benefits, becoming a net drain. We must raise taxes until we get through this. This needn't be a permanent, thing, but it probably needs to be a 20-30 year plan, otherwise we are going to be hammered. .
No fingerpointing is needed. No one in the 1940s expected there to be so many fewer kids relative to the old folks. It just happened, and instead of running form responsibility, we need to embrace it and do right by all our citizens.
Well, why didn't you liberal brains do something about it when you controlled the house, senate and presidency. No, what you brilliant bunch of xxxxxxxx came up with is Obamacare.
The first Medicare card was issued to former President Truman in 1965. He had not paid a dime in Medicare taxes and certainly had the means to pay for his own healthcare. The masses followed.
The baby boom is the first and only generation that paid into SS and Medicare their entire working lives and did so higher rates than the tail end of the prior generation. These taxes put the prior generations through their seniors years.
Tax rates have not kept pace with inflation, let alone healthcare cost inflation because raising taxes makes politicians unpopular. Instead, the can was kicked forward for decades and ta-da the empty can fell into Obama's lap in 2010, when the first of the baby boom began to turn 65.
Eligibility age need to increase over time.
Eligibility needs to be means tested.
Congress needs to empower Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription medications and portable medical devises.
Payroll taxes need to increase.
The whole end of life thing needs serious work.
More money needs to be allocated to fraud detection and prevention by hospitals and medical practices.
Next up is SSDI/Medicaid fraud.
Kentucky and W. Virginia are ground zero for fraud where a few law firms, MDs and judges conspire.
Such payments are as much as 8% of some local economies. That these two states are also ground zero for prescription medication addiction is no coincidence.
I have come to the conclusion there is no way to avoid the upcoming cost of our top heavy demographics. The boomers are going to break the bank, and unless we want to let them bankrupt Medicare, Social Security,etc. we need to plan ahead and raise taxes to spread this load out over time.
We cannot do it solely by axing the government, because those employees, when unemployed, will just start drawing benefits, becoming a net drain. We must raise taxes until we get through this. This needn't be a permanent, thing, but it probably needs to be a 20-30 year plan, otherwise we are going to be hammered.
No fingerpointing is needed. No one in the 1940s expected there to be so many fewer kids relative to the old folks. It just happened, and instead of running form responsibility, we need to embrace it and do right by all our citizens.
The youngest boomer is close to 50, the oldest are 67. So, essentially....your 20-30 year tax plan is going to be predominantly borne by.....non-boomers.
The other option is to just run up debt levels, sandbag the inflation estimate and let it erode their purchasing power. Then you blame food producers, oil companies etc. for "gouging" consumers because it can't possibly be inflation.
This latter option is vastly more attractive because most people are frankly too stupid or lazy to understand this but they absolutely know if thier check goes down $30.
Nah, they aren't going to up taxes....they are just going to keep running up the debt and let the invisible cattleprod of inflation do their dirty work.
They've paid into the system for decades. They'll never get all that money back.
Um, .....OASDI by it's very definition doesn't work that way.
It's like you bought life insurance and are complaining that it's a rip-off because most people don't collect back what they paid in.
Re-read your own link, just don't stop before you get to this part....
Quote:
But returns alone don't fully explain the value of Social Security, which has features that aren't available in typical private-sector retirement plans, said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP.
Spouses can get benefits even if they never earned wages. Children can get benefits if they have a working parent who dies. People who are too disabled to work can get benefits for life.
Please look at the chart and tell me which generation is the largest.
Gen X and Y together are 49% (19% and 30% respectively) of the population while Baby Boomers are 34%, which will continue to shrink as we age and die. Also note that the vast majority of the Boom generation is still working. Which I know is a problem for some of you because we're "clogging up the system".
Um, .....OASDI by it's very definition doesn't work that way.
It's like you bought life insurance and are complaining that it's a rip-off because most people don't collect back what they paid in.
If it's "insurance," why can't we opt out?
And why is it specifically called a TAX on our pay stubs?
Quote:
Re-read your own link, just don't stop before you get to this part....
Even better, I'll post from the link...
"A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.
Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration."
The youngest boomer is close to 50, the oldest are 67. So, essentially....your 20-30 year tax plan is going to be predominantly borne by.....non-boomers.
The other option is to just run up debt levels, sandbag the inflation estimate and let it erode their purchasing power. Then you blame food producers, oil companies etc. for "gouging" consumers because it can't possibly be inflation.
This latter option is vastly more attractive because most people are frankly too stupid or lazy to understand this but they absolutely know if thier check goes down $30.
Nah, they aren't going to up taxes....they are just going to keep running up the debt and let the invisible cattleprod of inflation do their dirty work.
Yep, we should have started this about 2000. But the boomers have been fighting to lower their taxes the whole time. That is why I consider Tea Partiers to be largely selfish dirt bags. If social security buys the farm by about 2030, it will really be a hose job for future generations.
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.
