tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post3204800450667543733..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Bill Keller Joins The Cut Social Security GangUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-45513936808192263292012-07-31T16:51:05.557-04:002012-07-31T16:51:05.557-04:00Barkley:
What you wrote about the relationship bet...Barkley:<br />What you wrote about the relationship between income and FICA taxes may well be true, but, as far as I know, it is a matter of opinion.<br />Relevant, reputable excerpts and links would be helpful.<br />What I wrote can be backed up by several reputable government sources.<br />I have the excerpts and links for those who are interested.<br />Please pose a specific question, so I can provide a specific link.<br />Don LevitDon Levithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497731736648561272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-20667554975123600692012-07-31T16:42:42.666-04:002012-07-31T16:42:42.666-04:00S-man, I simply avoided discussing at all how one...S-man, I simply avoided discussing at all how one would get growth going again in what was already a long post. That is a large topic of its own. I agree that greater equality of wealth and income would help that, for what it is worth, but there is a lot of other stuff involved as well. <br /><br />Richard, I agree.<br /><br />Don L., This matter of the accounting and the size of the funds goes back to the Greenspan fix adopted by Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and must be seen in the broader context of what happened to the tax side of fiscal policy during the Reagan administration. In a nutshell, Reagan reduced income taxes while lowering their progressivity while raising fica, which is regressive, thus sharply making the tax code far less progressive. The deficits arising from the income tax cuts then had to be "paid for" by the surpluses accruing to the Social Security Trust Fund.Barkley Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13114257724762074636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-4960290603873269282012-07-31T13:39:38.356-04:002012-07-31T13:39:38.356-04:00The real reason that the trust fund faces liquidit...The real reason that the trust fund faces liquidity problems is not due to the baby boomers or the youth, or any particular American citizen - other than the U.S. Congress. It was the Congress who discovered a clever way of paying for expenses, when the revenues ran short. And, this was by borrowing from the SS trust fund (and 23 other trust funds) the excess FICA dollars and "interest."<br />And, this clever way of leveraging money provided, from an accounting perspective, an asset to the SS trust fund and a liabilty to the Treasury, for an "accounting wash." The clever leverage comes in to play from a cash perspective, which is more relevant than the accounting perspective.<br />When was the last time you paid for groceries with accounting dollars?<br />The cash was used immediately, and the liability portion was deferred for 27 years (until the cash outgo exceeded the cash income). Economic Darwinism comes into play now, when the trust fund interest (and eventually, principal) can be redeemed to pay the cash shortfall either by general revenues (if a surplus) or increasing debt held by the public (if a deficit). Guess which vehicle was used?<br />That would be a great loan for the average Joe, don't you think? Just imagine, you use the asset part immediately, and do not have to pay anything, nothing, not even interest for 27 years.<br />Don LevitDon Levithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02497731736648561272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-34002261604564489142012-07-31T11:23:07.405-04:002012-07-31T11:23:07.405-04:00Keller falls for the "people live 14-more yea...Keller falls for the "people live 14-more years" illogic in arguing for a raise in the age at which SS benefits become available. People who reach 65 today live about 4 more years compared to people who reached age65 in 1940. That means only four more years of potential payout. But, we have already increased the retirement age for full SS benefits to 67, thus eliminating half of the extra years' payout due to increasing lifespan. Is it important to close more than half of the 4-year increase? I leave it to you, but remember two things:<br /> 1). Real income is way up since 1940, and we might want to devote a few more resources to SS recipients, and<br /> 2). People who live 14 more years pay into the SS program for an additional 12 years-- Ten of the fourteen extra years working till 65, and two more working years to reach the new retirement age of 67.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08697441898613477676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-34974088950759225982012-07-31T01:01:49.263-04:002012-07-31T01:01:49.263-04:00"the effort to get growth going again..."..."the effort to get growth going again..."<br /><br />I guess you haven't got the memo, Barkley? The austerity drive in Europe and the deficit mania in the U.S.A. should be hints that the honchos are on to something you haven't grasped yet: the benign growth machine ist kaput. Oh, they'll give lip service to the ol' time religion growth but they know -- as you SHOULD know -- that growth ain't gonna happen without ending the upward redistribution of income and wealth. Big Time. And they are not buying that. The rich folks are planning on hunkering down and holding onto the 'edge' they've got. 'Growth' as a 'technocratic' way to smooth over class conflict is obsolete.Sandwichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11159060882083015637noreply@blogger.com