Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
U Mich profs propose SS tax cut at age 55
Old 08-28-2012, 08:11 PM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
U Mich profs propose SS tax cut at age 55

A couple of professors say if we paid one percent more in payroll taxes until we were 55 we could stop payroll taxes at 55 giving workers an effective pay raise. The one percent would keep SS on track (presumably the current unsustainable track) but the pay raise would increase income taxes and motivate workers to keep working for a couple of more years thus reducing the deficit. Interesting concept: Why retire later?
__________________

__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-28-2012, 08:30 PM   #2
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Placerville
Posts: 161
They collect enough today if they'd just spend it on the original purpose they are collecting it for.

No new taxes. Elected officials can not be trusted with the money they collect today. No way should they be trusted with even more.
__________________

__________________
skipro3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 08:47 PM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
When implemented wouldn't this HUGELY benefit the folks over 55 who never had to pay the additional 1% when younger?
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 08:59 PM   #4
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
When implemented wouldn't this HUGELY benefit the folks over 55 who never had to pay the additional 1% when younger?
Pretty much every SS tax hike ever enacted does this. And I think we all know, right or wrong, fair or not, the odds are very high that SS "reforms" will disproportionately screw younger folks.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2012, 10:49 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
To lessen the "good deal" for current oldsters, it could be phased in so that the elimination of the payroll tax starts at, say, age 70 and progressively gets earlier as folks have been paying the extra tax longer.

But the bigger question is why paying more tax earlier in their working lives (when they aren't in their peak earning years and have kids to send to school, first homes to buy, etc) would be popular with voters. It won't be.

I think this idea is probably running against the grain of current popular thought. There's not much faith in intergenerational equity right now, and that organizations (government, big business, etc) will keep their word for several decades. In that kind of environment, people will take the bird in the hand.

"Hey, people are quitting work and enjoying the last part of their lives without employment--and paying low taxes. Low taxes! How can we change that behavior? Tax them a lot in the early years, promise they can keep more of the money they earn sometime in the future."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 10:30 AM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,328
This idea makes about as much sense as charging young couples with a few kids $10 a night to tent camp in a national park, while allowing a couple over 65 with a $50,000 motor home to camp at a discount.

Why would anybody do such a strange thing?
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 10:32 AM   #7
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
Why would anybody do such a strange thing?
For the same reasons kids under age 12 get in free...
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 11:15 AM   #8
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
This idea makes about as much sense as charging young couples with a few kids $10 a night to tent camp in a national park, while allowing a couple over 65 with a $50,000 motor home to camp at a discount.

Why would anybody do such a strange thing?
Because the young couples with a few kids don't vote.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 03:28 PM   #9
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
This idea makes about as much sense as charging young couples with a few kids $10 a night to tent camp in a national park, while allowing a couple over 65 with a $50,000 motor home to camp at a discount.

Why would anybody do such a strange thing?
The kids are free or cheaper makes sense for things like restaurants where their portion size is smaller, same thing for senior specials.

But in general I find age pricing to be mildly offensive. (Not so offensive that I won't leap to take advantage of it ) If private business want to offer it for whatever marketing reasons I have no problems, however when the Government does it, I have a real problem. Especially when it is for something has expensive as Social Security.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 04:00 PM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
The kids are free or cheaper makes sense for things like restaurants where their portion size is smaller, same thing for senior specials.

But in general I find age pricing to be mildly offensive. (Not so offensive that I won't leap to take advantage of it ) If private business want to offer it for whatever marketing reasons I have no problems, however when the Government does it, I have a real problem. Especially when it is for something has expensive as Social Security.
The purpose of the state is to take from some, and give to some others, according to the personal needs and strategies of those in power. Why is age any more offensive than any other dimension on which boons or penalties are granted and levied?

At least each of us has a shot of getting to whatever the age in question is. Less true for sex or national origin or race or whatever other discriminator is being applied.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 08:18 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
It's the age-old (pun not intended) reason.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” ― George Orwell, Animal Farm
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2012, 08:18 PM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The purpose of the state is to take from some, and give to some others, according to the personal needs and strategies of those in power. Why is age any more offensive than any other dimension on which boons or penalties are granted and levied?

At least each of us has a shot of getting to whatever the age in question is. Less true for sex or national origin or race or whatever other discriminator is being applied.

Ha
Not surprisingly I am not huge believer that wealth transfer is the primary function of government. I recognize that at times it is a necessary function.

But in general I think these transfers should be based on need rather than any other factor.

So I'd rather see the free camping be given to a bunch of special needs kids in foster homes, than senior citizens.
__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 07:48 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The purpose of the state is to take from some, and give to some others, according to the personal needs and strategies of those in power.
What section of the Constitution is this listed in?
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2012, 08:04 PM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
What section of the Constitution is this listed in?
Constitution of the United States - Page 2

Article I, Section 8.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 01:55 AM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
What section of the Constitution is this listed in?
If you think that the constitution elucidates the purpose of government, you are scratching the surface. What you governments everywhere always end up doing? Taking from some, and giving to others, according to the needs of those in power. If this is what they always do, this must be what they are truly about, no mater what PR is contained in documents or speeches.

And ClifP, note that I said nothing at all about the needs of those who are being given to- it is always and only about the needs of those in power. Mainly staying in power.
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 03:23 AM   #16
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 95
+1 Haha
__________________
Hiredgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 12:53 PM   #17
Recycles dryer sheets
BOBOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipro3 View Post
No new taxes. Elected officials can not be trusted with the money they collect today. No way should they be trusted with even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
The purpose of the state is to take from some, and give to some others, according to the personal needs and strategies of those in power. ....

Ha
Well, I would propose that the function of government is to secure and provide for the common good, and that taxes are the means to that end (I am not saying that the ideal is always lived up to).

If you don't buy that, than what would you suggest to deal with this problem?

(Apologies to donheff for contributing to the hijack of his thread.)
__________________
I still don't get it...
BOBOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 02:27 PM   #18
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
I guess everybody looks a the evidence and decides for himself what is the de facto real purpose of government. High School civics gives your definition.

To me, there is almost no evidence that the "common good" has ever been the purpose of any sample of governments for any considerable length of time.

This appears to be true of national governments, state governments, municipalities, port commissions- people are always mainly interested in their own ends and well being.

I believe that even a casual acquaintance with history would uphold this.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 04:05 PM   #19
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,643
I still buy that we defined the purpose of our national government in the preamble:
"form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,"
The fact that individuals fall short in the implementation doesn't change the purpose we have defined for ourselves. For that we need a real amendment - defacto doesn't do it.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2012, 06:12 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,879
I think that this tread has drifted off into a philosophical argument over the purpose of government. I believe the OP was about a modification to SS funding.
__________________

__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:20 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.