I think they should invoke the old rulebook used with the 1993 round of Base Realignments and Closures-- vote for the whole slate as proposed or stand up for continuing to waste the money. It was about the only way to get Congress to agree to "repurpose" all the military real estate in their districts...
Deficit panel leaders' plan curbs Social Security and Other Sacred Cows
- Thread starter MasterBlaster
- Start date
dex
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,105
Then there is a precedent.
The UK certainly does. You have to have less than $x in savings or investments to qualify for several benefits.
In France there is a wealth tax based on net worth above a certain value.
Wealth tax in France - a tax on your fortune from FrenchEntre.com
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
Plenty of programs in the US from college loans, to free/subsidized insurance for children require the applicant/taxpayer to list their assets and those with too much money are are ineligible or see reduce benefits (example college loans)
dex
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,105
Bear Stock Market
Reductions in SS?
Increased Taxes?
Precarious investment environment?
Terrorists
Wealth Tax?
VAT?
It will be a challenging 30 years in retirement.
The Social Security proposals sound a little drastic for what should be the easiest to fix deficit. Bet they're trying to make it so the govt never has to pay back all the money they've borrowed from SS, and pull in any future extra funds to pay non-SS bills.
youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Long suffering DW, who is well worn form listening to me piss and moan about politics these past 40+ years, suggested that if blessed with 30 years of happy, healthy retirement, then a few more idiotic moves by our gov't should be blown off and not fretted over. Don't know if I can do that, but she's probably correct. Last time I checked, it looks like we're gona be dead for a long time.........
meierlde
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
While it is done by the executor have a look at a form 706 (the estate or death tax) which is a wealth tax. The form is huge and relies on lots of schedules.
meierlde
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Note that the extension of the age for SS to 68 in 2050 hits only those 28 or younger, and to 69 in 2075 hits 4 year olds. If you are a boomer its already happened to you.
The 15/30 standard deduction would wipe out the need for mortgage interest in all except the coasts, as 20k a year would buy a 400k house at 5% which except on the coasts and near Chicago is quite a house.
The 15/30 standard deduction would wipe out the need for mortgage interest in all except the coasts, as 20k a year would buy a 400k house at 5% which except on the coasts and near Chicago is quite a house.
Not sure what you are implying by this question, if anything? Using net worth is just an example of means testing. And, yes, I can think of several programs here in the US that use means testing as a way to determine who gets benefits (welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc.)
If I wasn't clear in my previous post, I was simply trying to point out that we have a system going broke and one way to help right the ship would be to stop paying benefits to those that don't need them. Of course, as I have posted before we first really need to come to a universal agreement on what Social Security is supposed to be. Is it a safety net for those who need it or a retirement program for everybody? I'd like to think it's the former because I don't think any of us can honestly think the federal government should be our first choice in money and retirement portfolio management.
A slide presentation of the co-chair's draft report is here. One of the tax reform options (number 2, see slide 26) says: "Limit mortgage deduction to exclude 2ndresidences, home equity loans, and mortgages over $500,000." This same slide also offers the $15K/30K standard deduction.
I think it would best if the standard deduction were lower than this. In my opinion, those not in poverty should be paying federal taxes, even if the rate is very low (5%). Setting a high standard deduction produces a huge constituency of voters with no stake in restraining government spending or in reducing tax rates. That's not good for the country. 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.
Well, how about at the same time we get rid of government pensions for people who don't really need them, and also extend the pension retirement age to 62 or 66. State and Federal govt. should not be the first choice in any retirement.
kyounge1956
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,171
I was going to make a poll, but IIRC the maximum number of options on a poll is 20, and there are a lot more suggestions in the report than that.
clifp
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2006
- Messages
- 7,733
Actually the 15/30K standard deduction is one of my favorite things about the proposal. One of the goals if the reform is to broaden the tax base I think it does this. Right now the median household income is 45K and approximately 30% of household incomes under 30K per year. Assuming that most all deduction other than the 1K tax credit per kid are wiped out I would think this would drop the number who don't pay taxes from the 47% rate to a number in the 30-35% rate, which looks like an improvement to me.
The reason I like the high standard deduction is really simplifies taxes for the vast majority or Americans and discourages the minor cheating. E.g. claiming that underwear you donated is worth $5/pair or fudging on your prescription cost etc. If you have to get $30,000 worth of deductions people will just claim the standard deduction and move on.
BTW, as one of the 47% of American who haven't paid federal (or state) taxes for the last few years, I still feel an obligation to reduce the debt, even if it means reduced benefits or future higher taxes.
chinaco
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 5,072
Pensions are not charities. People worked for them. People do not work for free (capitalism).
The government has to exist and it takes people to work for the government. If you want smart people in govt (and we do)... the govt needs to pay some mix of wages and benefits that approximates the private sector.
It is not fair (or right) to just yank people's pensions. Most older people factored into their retirement plans.
Now if your point is:
We need to trim the size of the government workforce (trim jobs) and reevaluate pay and benefits for the employees to make sure they are competitive... I would agree.
BTW: I do not work for the govt or have any pension coming from them ... except SS.
As far as SS goes... most americans that worked paid into it(along with their employer). It would not be reasonable to just take it away (regardless of their wealth).
The American way will be to tax income and ultimately to recapture it at the end (estate taxes). IOW... you can use it while you are alive... but in the end, they will recapture taxes on unspent money if one is "Wealthy". It results in the same outcome... Higher taxes to pay for the programs. Just like there is a constant stream of income that can be taxed.... there is a constant stream of deaths!
keegs
Recycles dryer sheets
I'm persuaded by these broken souls who complain about our broken tax system and our broken government's broken promises.
Gone4Good
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 5,381
scrabbler1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Lots of good comments here about the Debt Commission's proposals. Many of them I would have written the very same way.
A few things I would like to see:
(1) Equalize the tax treatment of health insurance premiums between those who are on an employer's plan versus those who buy individual coverage. Those on an employer's plan receive some of their premiums tax-free and the rest of their premiums can be paid for using pretax dollars, while those buying individual coverage can at best use pretax dollars to pay for some but not all of their premiums. The employer subsidy should be taxable income and all the premiums paid by both groups should be able to be paid for using pretax dollars.
(2) One fix to SS which would help a lot especially in the long-term is to switch from wage-indexing to price-indexing in the benefit formula. This can be phased in gradually like raising the retirement age and can be tweaked so it doesn't overly affect would-be retirees with lower wages when they were working.
Tax simplification and tax fairness are often at odds with each other. I just compare how my state (New York) taxes dividends and cap gains versus how the Feds tax them. New York simply taxes both of them as ordinary income, so there is no messy dividends and cap gains worksheet. I am not sure I like either extreme, as the simpler one should be fairer and the fairer(?) one should be simpler.
I, too, was fascinated at seeing how the Left has railed against SS changes while the Right railed against any tax increases. Unless they hold hands and jump off the cliff together like the Greenspan Commission did with SS reforms back in 1983, this commission's proposals will go the way of other well-intentioned commissions' proposals - nowhere.
A few things I would like to see:
(1) Equalize the tax treatment of health insurance premiums between those who are on an employer's plan versus those who buy individual coverage. Those on an employer's plan receive some of their premiums tax-free and the rest of their premiums can be paid for using pretax dollars, while those buying individual coverage can at best use pretax dollars to pay for some but not all of their premiums. The employer subsidy should be taxable income and all the premiums paid by both groups should be able to be paid for using pretax dollars.
(2) One fix to SS which would help a lot especially in the long-term is to switch from wage-indexing to price-indexing in the benefit formula. This can be phased in gradually like raising the retirement age and can be tweaked so it doesn't overly affect would-be retirees with lower wages when they were working.
Tax simplification and tax fairness are often at odds with each other. I just compare how my state (New York) taxes dividends and cap gains versus how the Feds tax them. New York simply taxes both of them as ordinary income, so there is no messy dividends and cap gains worksheet. I am not sure I like either extreme, as the simpler one should be fairer and the fairer(?) one should be simpler.
I, too, was fascinated at seeing how the Left has railed against SS changes while the Right railed against any tax increases. Unless they hold hands and jump off the cliff together like the Greenspan Commission did with SS reforms back in 1983, this commission's proposals will go the way of other well-intentioned commissions' proposals - nowhere.
The Senate leadership did agree to vote on the final draft of the proposal in its entirety – but only if the Commission gathers 14 votes in support. Like the Wizard of Oz agreeing to grant a wish but only after Dorothy accomplishes an impossible feat – which she subsequently does.
Nobody seems surprised at the recommendations. IMHO this shows that our problems are well understood and not insurmountable and most of the actions needed are simple, but hard, both in commitment and in execution. The weakest part is the containment of medicare costs.
This will be a good test of how much the general public really wants US fiscal reform and what kind of political leadership we have elected between the past 2 elections.
Nobody seems surprised at the recommendations. IMHO this shows that our problems are well understood and not insurmountable and most of the actions needed are simple, but hard, both in commitment and in execution. The weakest part is the containment of medicare costs.
This will be a good test of how much the general public really wants US fiscal reform and what kind of political leadership we have elected between the past 2 elections.
I might be wrong by I'm under the impression that if 14 of the 18 members of the commission approve the proposal it goes to the congress for an up-or-down vote without amendment.
Anyone else read this?
How this works out depends on whether wage growth (which is ultimately dependent on US worker productivity) outpaces inflation. In the past it generally has (in the US), which is why the US standard of living has improved and why people see this as a way to save some money in SS payments to seniors. But, looking longer term, there are good reasons to believe US inflation could be relatively high and some believe that US wages, due to increased international competition, are bound to lag. If these folks are right, switching over to inflation indexing of benefits rather than wage indexing could lead to higher growth in SS payments and bigger problems for the SS system as wages (and therefore payroll taxes) stay flat.
In concept, we could peg SS payouts tightly to what is brought in each year in payroll taxes. That puts everyone, recipients and payers, in the same boat, looking (and voting) for things that enhance US competitiveness.
Goverment employee pension and healthcare benefits should also be on the table. I know government employees do not work for free but their pension and benefits are also under funded. We should also consider increase the age where they collect full pension and increase out-of-pocket contribution for their healthcare benefits.
Costs cutting should be done across the board.
Costs cutting should be done across the board.
Agreed. The speed and volume of the reaction indicates everyone had their press releases written already with their fingers poised over the "send" button.
I wonder how the recent election results will enter into the mix. The Congressional Democrats are, as a group, more liberal now than before the election and, from the sound of their leadership, not in a mood to accept the big spending cuts. All the most vulnerable Democrats have been "purged" by the voters, and the remainder don't need to move to the center, instead they see value in protecting their traditional constituencies. Republicans, of course, are now in a position to make proposals of their own, independent of this deficit commission, and they can likely get them voted on and passed--in the House. Things may be different in the Senate, where many Democrats didn't recently stand for election, but they saw the carnage and may be willing to move rightward to help avoid joining the ranks of the unemployed. If the Republicans don't overplay their hand, there's room for progress there despite the very close Dem/Rep number split. A lot will depend on the political maneuvering--if the Senate leadership and committees can prevent bills from coming to a vote (and they often can) then the existence of a middle ground there is moot. And the demagoguery and bellowing as we move forward will eclipse anything we heard during the health care "debate."
That would be a good idea. From my recollection, BRAC worked pretty well. My community managed to get a base we wanted to close anyway on the list (even though it was such a small facility that it would have been beneath the radar for BRAC.) The reason my community did this was to get the BRAC bennies for the civilian employees and the local community (which wouldn't have been available if the 2nd echelon commander had simply made an operational decision to close it.)
You would know the details better than I, but wasn't New London originally on the Round 2 list for closure but then got taken off due to extensive lobbying by the Connecticut folks?
I don't mean that example to negate the wisdom of using a BRAC-like approach; I think it worked very well.
Last edited:
