[mikemike]

And funding it... here is an interesting idea (although I wonder if it is actuarially valid).

Landry would allow taxpayers to decide if they want to continue to pay a lower Social Security tax, but would require those that opt in for the tax decrease to extend their own retirement age by one month.

Each year, Landry would allow taxpayers to pay the lower rate -- currently 4.2 percent vs. the regular 6.2 percent -- and accept whatever extension of their retirement age is needed to finance the lower levy.

Rep. Jeff Landry proposes way to finance temporary reduction in Social Security taxes | NOLA.com

Make the lower rate optional, this would be kind of a partial privatization because you could easily choose to put that extra 2% into a 401k or IRA and invest it yourself to more than make up for the lowered SS benefits. And it would be somewhat more palatable than the partisan plans to pay for it on the backs of either federal workers or the rich.

[jeffkrol]

The FED does not need to "fund" it..............

[Nesster]

The FED

... you know you're far too involved with cameras when you see "The FED" and think soviet rangefinder

[GeneV]

The FED does not need to "fund" it..............

And if it were funded with the tax on the truly rich proposed here, it would fall on very strong backs.

[mikemike]

And if it were funded with the tax on the truly rich proposed here, it would fall on very strong backs.

In what world does the 1% pay for everything for the 99%? Where else does the world work like this?

Once a couple of years ago I was at a Chinese buffet having dinner with some friends when in walks Carl Nicks, Jahari Evans, Jermon Bushrod, Jon Stinchcomb, and Jon Goodwin - the offensive line of the New Orleans Saints. The resturaunt did not announce, "we have some 1%ers here and therefore they will be forced to pay everyone else's bill." I am fairly certain they paid the same $15/person everyone else in the restaurant was paying even though they were probably eating a lot more food than most of the other people there and as professional athletes they will be benefiting from each calorie they consumed more than most others there. That is just not how the world works.

[Ratmagiclady]

"The backs of the rich?"

I thought they were too rugged individualist to admit they *have* backs. Never mind use 'em.


Or are they just all tuckered out from pretending there's a 'burden' to carrying all that money around?

[cardinal43]

In what world does the 1% pay for everything for the 99%? Where else does the world work like this?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The 1% doesn't pay for everything for the 99%. I'm part of the 99% and the 1% damn sure doesn't pay any of my federal or state taxes. They also never paid any of my medicare or social security deductions. I paid them myself. Obama is saying the 1% should pay their fair share.

[mikemike]

They don't pay your taxes but they pay much much more in taxes than you do therefore they do subsidize to some degree almost every governmental service you take for granted. The big question is what is their fair share. Is it professional athlete's fair share to pick up the tab for everyone dining in a restaurant?

[jeffkrol]

They don't pay your taxes but they pay much much more in taxes than you do therefore they do subsidize to some degree almost every governmental service you take for granted. The big question is what is their fair share. Is it professional athlete's fair share to pick up the tab for everyone dining in a restaurant?

Of course there is that annoying historical evidence that, regardless of "fair" or not.. it worked...............

These results run 100 percent contrary to Republican dogma, which is that tax increases, especially on the rich, do not yield additional revenue because people will cease working and investing, and the economy will stagnate. Yet the hallmarks of the 1990 and 1993 budget deals were an increase in the top income tax rate; first to 31 percent from 28 percent, and then to 39.6 percent. Revenue clearly rose, as did the economy.

The hallmarks of the George W. Bush administration were large tax cuts almost annually. These were supposed to stimulate growth and lead to lower spending by “starving the beast.” Revenue fell more than 2 percent of G.D.P. by fiscal year 2007, which ended just before the recession began in December 2007. Spending rose to 19.6 percent of G.D.P. because of two unfunded wars, unchecked spending on earmarks by Republicans in Congress and creation of a new entitlement program, Medicare Part D. We went from a surplus of 2.4 percent of G.D.P. to a deficit of 1.2 percent.

In 2002, Republicans got rid of paygo so that they could cut taxes and increase spending without constraint.

Thus we have a perfect test of two economic theories: one that says raising taxes and imposing binding constraints on spending will balance the budget, which was successful, and another that says cutting taxes will starve the beast, which failed spectacularly.

And just for good measure, the former set of policies were far more stimulative to economic growth than the latter, as shown in the following table from the Congressional Research Service.

Bruce Bartlett: Balancing the Budget, for Real - NYTimes.com
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/150750.pdf

Just call it collecting what they borrowed during the Bush era..............

[Nesster]

They don't pay your taxes but they pay much much more in taxes than you do therefore they do subsidize to some degree almost every governmental service you take for granted. The big question is what is their fair share. Is it professional athlete's fair share to pick up the tab for everyone dining in a restaurant?

Well, the same guys go to the car dealership. Do they buy the cheap Chevy, Ford, Toyota etc the ordinary person does? Or do they go for a vette, Range Rover, Bentley, big Lexus, Mercedes, etc? The expensive cars do give them more, but the profit margins are also larger - in effect, a 'surcharge tax' on the 1%.

The idea of a fair share can be looked at as a portion of disposable income. Someone making $50K or $100K or even $150K will have a much bigger part of their income taken by their annual nut than a person at $300K or $500K or >$1mill, even with the 'luxury tax' inherent in the deluxe life style available to the high earners. Or are you telling me the guy making $500K notices a couple of grand as much as the guy making $50K?

---

Besides which, the last time I looked, the payroll tax aka FICA is not progressive. Once you've made the maximum, you don't pay any more. So in the Chinese restaurant, given that the offensive linemen likely eat 3x what an ordinary person does, in effect the ordinary patron is subsidizing the rich and large.

[GeneV]

In what world does the 1% pay for everything for the 99%? .

In the same world where the 1% keep all of the money for the work of the 99%.

[mikemike]

Just call it collecting what they borrowed during the Bush era..............

That is not what it is though, so far as I can tell the plan is to keep cutting taxes and keep spending. It used to be that just the democrats were "tax and spend liberals," then W Bush came along and the republicans became "borrow and waste neocons," then along came Obama who decided that two can play at that game. Luckily the Tea Party is around these days to stymie that behavior.

The payroll tax is not progressive but social security benefits are ever so slightly progressive and there is some openness to making them even more so at least from the republicans, democrats don't like that because it is so obviously unfair that it would erode support for the programs. Likewise medicare benefits are neither progressive nor regressive so I don't think that either of these programs or taxes

Rich people are not obliged to buy luxury cars and non-rich people are not prohibited from buying them either. Right after Katrina I was living in a very expensive apartment complex because it was the only thing I could find and they had actually not increased their prices since they were already overpriced, most of the other people who lived there were doctors in their residence and nurses because it was pretty close to a teaching hospital and about half the cars in the parking lot were luxury cars not because their owners were rich but because they wanted to show off and they had the mentality that I'm already $200K in debt for med school so whats another $60K for a BMW. Even with the car example, if dealerships worked like the federal government does a poor person would walk into the dealership and they would sell them a car with a $25K sticker price for $10K and a rich person would be charged $75K for the exact same car. The logic for why that is fair is that the car provides the rich person and the poor person with transportation but the rich person benefits more from that transportation because it is bringing them to a higher paying job. Where else in our society is that definition of "fair" inescapably applied as it is with taxes?

[pxpaulx]

They don't pay your taxes but they pay much much more in taxes than you do therefore they do subsidize to some degree almost every governmental service you take for granted. The big question is what is their fair share. Is it professional athlete's fair share to pick up the tab for everyone dining in a restaurant?

If we are only discussing the social security tax here, your logic is fundamentally flawed considering the income cap is about $106K - any income beyond this has a whopping 0% contribution. 50 years ago making $100K/annually was a lot of money. Today not so much, heck, that is probably square in the middle of average incomes in some areas with higher costs of living.

So, what is your argument against lifting that cap? The buffet analogy isn't holding up to well here. The price of food at a buffet is the same for everyone, that almost sounds like a socialist agenda to me. Also, the buffet will serve everyone. I'll bet the buffet owners didn't tell you to leave so they could serve only the big celebrity football players because there won't be any food left for you. Republicans on the other hand would like to tell the average person there is nothing left, you still have to pay us, but we will only be serving the food to the rich.

[pxpaulx]

Rich people are not obliged to buy luxury cars and non-rich people are not prohibited from buying them either. Right after Katrina I was living in a very expensive apartment complex because it was the only thing I could find and they had actually not increased their prices since they were already overpriced, most of the other people who lived there were doctors in their residence and nurses because it was pretty close to a teaching hospital and about half the cars in the parking lot were luxury cars not because their owners were rich but because they wanted to show off and they had the mentality that I'm already $200K in debt for med school so whats another $60K for a BMW. Even with the car example, if dealerships worked like the federal government does a poor person would walk into the dealership and they would sell them a car with a $25K sticker price for $10K and a rich person would be charged $75K for the exact same car. The logic for why that is fair is that the car provides the rich person and the poor person with transportation but the rich person benefits more from that transportation because it is bringing them to a higher paying job. Where else in our society is that definition of "fair" inescapably applied as it is with taxes?

I think in the end you seem to have a hard time distinguishing between individual wants and societal needs. Trying to draw analogies between buying goods for consumption and addressing basic human needs through government function is a fundamentally flawed premise.

It is funny how Republicans are all for individual rights when it comes to holding onto every cent they earn, but when it comes to the basic needs of others, embodied in the Occupy movement, the protesters are labelled as self absorbed individual cry-babies.

Tangent on your car buying premise - It still amazes me that there is not universal health care in a modern functioning society. People don't want to call the police, they need to. They don't want to call the fire department, they need to. People don't want to go to the hospital...draw your own conclusion I guess.

[mikemike]

So, what is your argument against lifting that cap?

Social Security has a contribution cap on the taxation side and a compensation cap on the benefit side. My only problem with lifting the contribution cap and the benefit cap in lock step is that social security is a poor retirement savings vehicle compared to other options out there. My problem with raising the contribution cap without raising the benefit cap is that it is unfair.

Tangent on your car buying premise - It still amazes me that there is not universal health care in a modern functioning society. People don't want to call the police, they need to. They don't want to call the fire department, they need to. People don't want to go to the hospital...draw your own conclusion I guess.

The police will come out to you if they are called but if you want a 24 hour security detail for your piece of mind you must pay them and if you want your stuff to be replaced after you are burglarized you will need to have renters' or homeowners' insurance which covers your losses. The fire department will come out and fight a fire but if you want to install a fire suppression system in your building they will not do that, you have to pay for that yourself and if you want your stuff to be replaced you need to have a renters' or homeowners' insurance policy that includes fire. If someone needs to go to the ER they will be able to go and if they are indigent they will still get care but if you want preventative care (akin to a security detail or a sprinkler system) or enhanced services (like a prosthetic after an amputation) you will need insurance to cover those non-emergency care. Aside from the fact that we are comparing personal property to your body I don't see a huge difference in the way these emergency and non-emergency services play out in our functioning modern society.