News Should the Bush tax cuts be extended?

[Al68]

Once again, SS is self-funded, and is not a drain on our budget.

LOL. Self-funded? The fact that it's funded from the "payroll tax" instead of the "personal income tax" makes it "self-funded"?

So if congress were to separate out taxes used to fund the military, and give them a separate name, we could call the military "self-funded"?

 

[Gokul43201]

It's possible that I misunderstand you, but that seems 'obviously' wrong.

No, I don't think you've misunderstood. In general, I hold that it is at least very hard to justify a more-or-less universal negative. An example of a universal negative is: there is no link between action A and entity B. In a system in which the elementary entities (people+wealth, in this case) interact in gazillions of different ways, it would take at least a little more than "it's obvious" to convince me of the absence of any link between different parts of the system.

The majority of the budget (51% as of 2008, you can check other years for comparison if you like) goes to social security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc. (where "etc." refers to other 'safety net' programs like unemployment payments). How would these help the present rich to have gained their fortunes? (Not exactly sure what you mean by "rich", but something in the upper 50% surely, probably in the top 1%.)

Consider a rich (pick some suitable definition - I don't think that affects the argument significantly) person who owns a company that hires several non-rich people. The earning potential of the rich person is directly tied to the performance of the company, which depends on the welfare of the non-rich workers that help run it. And the welfare of these non-rich people is directly dependent on the programs mentioned above. Ergo, <blah>.

 

[turbo]

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

CRG, I think that we can relate. Our country and our states (to more or lesser extents) provide an environment in which we can operate with some expectation of future stability. Is this worth nothing? People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

 

[Gokul43201]

People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

The implication here, I believe, is that they don't (help pay ...). Could you explain?

 

[nismaratwork]

I just have to say, having been here from page 1, this has been one of the most surreal threads I've ever been a part of. The way in which different people are interpreting the same data, the differences in how figures such as Reagan are viewed (often the loved and hate stem from the same sources).

Above all I'm surprised that while the current trend of the discussion has been fairly open thanks to Gokul, often this degenerates into dogmatic and polarized camps.

 

[Al68]

People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security?

Again, nobody in this thread is advocating any such thing. And nobody on the planet that I'm aware of. Can you provide a source?

Goldwater wasn't a slave to monied interests. He was a pretty solid conservative with a wide libertarian streak. I don't think that McConnel or Boehner would accept him in their party today. They are neo-cons. He was not.

He was a "neo-con" according to the rest of the world, which is my point. The word neo-con is used by everyone else to describe the political philosophy epitomized by Goldwater. Or sometimes used to mean not far enough to the right to be considered a real conservative. Nobody else (as far as I can tell) uses it in a way that could describe McConnel and Boehner, but not Goldwater.

And is "slave to monied interests" a slur by forum rules? It's certainly about as "derogatory and insulting" as one can get. Regardless, such a statement has no place in honest debate, since it refers to motives.

 

[turbo]

The implication here, I believe, is that they don't (help pay ...). Could you explain?

They pay 15% on the capital gains that they can't possibly exempt from taxation. The people who are subject to withholding have no such flexibility. We just pay.

 

[mheslep]

But the rich do benefit from the federal government's primary purpose, protecting our liberty, to a far greater extent than the poor, and they should pick up the tab for that. Nobody is arguing otherwise, which was my point.

I've tried a few times to start discussions relating to that point here, but with little or no success.

I certainly agree. This doesn't mean of course that the well off or anyone else for that matter are obliged to approve of spending without limit on defense, the FBI, Justice, etc.

 

[CRGreathouse]

CRG, I think that we can relate. Our country and our states (to more or lesser extents) provide an environment in which we can operate with some expectation of future stability. Is this worth nothing? People who get taxed on capital gains tax only (max 15%) and make millions of dollars a year shouldn't have to help pay for the system that provides them that security? I hope we can change things.

I don't think that any person should pay into the SS system, rich or poor.

 

[turbo]

I don't think that any person should pay into the SS system, rich or poor.

So you think that we should all just "opt out"? This could be a hazard to elderly people who are getting just enough money to stay out of poverty. Or do you think that SS checks are generous enough to keep the "welfare queens" in brand-new Cadillacs?

Forgive the tweak, please. SS was founded on the premise that the present workers would provide a modest income for present retirees. It was not considered welfare, and should not be used to paint its current recipients, either. This program can continue with only minor tweaks into perpetuity. SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit. How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

 

[Al68]

SS was founded on the premise that the present workers would provide a modest income for present retirees.

So is it safe to assume you have no problem with the term "involuntary pyramid scheme" being used to describe it then?

SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit.

That's true if considered separately from the rest of the budget, but in that case, it has its own surplus or deficit, so it's a completely semantical point. It's not a question of fact.

How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

What "fact" do you want accepted? That if you consider the SS system separately from the rest of the budget, its surplus or deficit is also separate from the rest of the budget. I think we got it the first time.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What "fact" do you want accepted?

I think that the "'fact'" is that (when considered apart from the rest of the budget) SS cannot run a deficit, only a surplus. I haven't checked that; I simply assume that turbo-1 is correct in his assertion.

 

[CRGreathouse]

SS cannot borrow money and cannot add to our deficit. How much repetition is required to get this accepted as a fact?

That may be financially true, but it is economically false. At present the Social Security system holds a large number of US bonds and future obligations which will require more than 100% of expected contributions and all of the bonds. (Admittedly, the middle scenario [which I see as slightly optimistic] does not exceed 100% greatly.)

The US government is running a hefty deficit at the moment. In the future we will need to pay higher interest (presently about 10% of US government spending) because of this debt. Further, in addition to not being able to borrow from SS as we have in the past, we will need to repay the SS fund from last decade's borrowing.

Where will this money come from? Of course we won't have the money and it will be borrowed, adding to the debt.

 

[Al68]

I think that the "'fact'" is that (when considered apart from the rest of the budget) SS cannot run a deficit, only a surplus. I haven't checked that; I simply assume that turbo-1 is correct in his assertion.

No, it's not true that SS cannot run a deficit, and turbo-1 didn't imply that at all, it's just true that it doesn't run a deficit (yet) and therefore as a system, its revenues cover the cost of its expenditures. In fact, since SS runs a surplus that is used to buy treasury securities, it actually acts to reduce the general budget deficit in that regard.

And turbo-1 is correct that SS could continue indefinitely with "tweaking", and nobody disputes that that I'm aware of. Of course there is plenty of disagreement between and within each party about not only how to tweak it, but whether to make major changes, but a discussion of that would need a separate thread.

Further, in addition to not being able to borrow from SS as we have in the past, we will need to repay the SS fund from last decade's borrowing.

Where will this money come from? Of course we won't have the money and it will be borrowed, adding to the debt.

That last part isn't technically true, only because the funds owed to SS by the treasury are already included in the current national debt figure. It added to the debt in the past tense, since the money has already been spent, and the obligation to repay it is current federal debt.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - SS was intended to serve as a retirement trust - a safety net to supplement retirement savings. It has evolved into an unfunded entitlement program. I think the program needs to be reorganized with the retirement program managed separate and made a non-negotiable funding priority. The disability program is expanding out of control, often inconjunction with Medicaid, and needs to be managed as part of the budget - and subject to cuts and restrictions. The problem is further complicated as Medicaid is only partially funded by the FEDERAL Govt and the rest paid by individual states. The management of both disability and Medicaid might even be managed better in state hands with a percentage billed to Washington - keep national politics out of the decision making process - again, IMO.

 

[OmCheeto]

I just have to say, having been here from page 1, this has been one of the most surreal threads I've ever been a part of. The way in which different people are interpreting the same data, the differences in how figures such as Reagan are viewed (often the loved and hate stem from the same sources).

Above all I'm surprised that while the current trend of the discussion has been fairly open thanks to Gokul, often this degenerates into dogmatic and polarized camps.

Polarized? In the Politics forum?

I too have been here since page one. And it would require a book sized post to argue for or against most of assertions. It's been 25 hours since my last post("Notabunchofliars") and already there are 3 new pages. This is more chatty than chat.

But anyways, my point seems to have been appropriately expanded upon by others, so I'll throw something new out, which is derived from the http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml" provided earlier. And I do this because the numbers jumped out at me in one of those "OMG" kind of ways.


2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year)

______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly
Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85
Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15
Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70

Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90
Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75


Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%

 

[turbo]

Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA

 

[CRGreathouse]

That last part isn't technically true, only because the funds owed to SS by the treasury are already included in the current national debt figure. It added to the debt in the past tense, since the money has already been spent, and the obligation to repay it is current federal debt.

Quite right, my apologies for imprecision.

 

[OmCheeto]

Stop talking sense, Om. You'll get banned from P&WA

Sorry!

And thank you for putting that "&" in there. I saw "PWA" earlier and couldn't figure out what it was:
"Peoples Workers Alliance?" Another Marxist comment?
"Pro-Wealth Assn?" A Libertarian think tank?

Anyways, in case anyone wonders where I came up with the 3 and 1/3 percent tax increase, it's from the https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2588911&postcount=246" thread post I made in February.

Actually, that graph is kind of telling. Let me regurgitate it:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/110xx/doc11014/MainText_HseVersion.28.1.3.png

That's really impressive that government spending tended lower as a percent of gdp from 1984 through 2001, from 24 to 18%. Starting with 12 years of Reagan-Bush, then 8 years of Clinton. Almost makes it look like the government was shrinking. But that can't be right. Republicans and Democrats reducing spending?

 

[CRGreathouse]

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me. Just needs a bit of tweaking in my opinion. Maybe a 1/3 of 1% annual increase over the next 10 years. To balance the budget of course.

Lowest Quintile _______4%
Second Quintile ______11%
Middle Quintile ______17%
Fourth Quintile ______21%
Highest Quintile _____34%

All Quintiles ________26%

Top 10% ______________38%
Top 5% _______________41%
Top 1% _______________45%

Those numbers are reasonably close to my understanding (though, to be honest, I didn't think the bottom quintile was paying *any* net tax -- are you including the EITC?

Personally I'd prefer to reduce the deficit by decreasing spending than raising taxes (cut spending until we have a meaningful surplus, run this for a number of years until the debt is largely erased, then cut taxes further). But I don't imagine that is politically feasible.

 

[CRGreathouse]

That's really impressive that government spending tended lower as a percent of gdp from 1984 through 2001, from 24 to 18%. Starting with 12 years of Reagan-Bush, then 8 years of Clinton. Almost makes it look like the government was shrinking. But that can't be right. Republicans and Democrats reducing spending?

Heh. I'd prefer to look at the parties controlling Congress, in which case it was Republicans and Democrats rather than Republicans and Democrats.

 

[CRGreathouse]

No, it's not true that SS cannot run a deficit, and turbo-1 didn't imply that at all, it's just true that it doesn't run a deficit (yet) and therefore as a system, its revenues cover the cost of its expenditures.

OK, now I have two competing assertions...

 

[CRGreathouse]

IMO - SS was intended to serve as a retirement trust - a safety net to supplement retirement savings. It has evolved into an unfunded entitlement program.

As usual, you are much better at expressing yourself than I am. :shy:

 

[OmCheeto]

Those numbers are reasonably close to my understanding (though, to be honest, I didn't think the bottom quintile was paying *any* net tax -- are you including the EITC?

The bottom quintile pays a tax, even though they and the second quintile both get the EITC, because excise and social security taxes are a bit regressive:

10.3% tax rate for the bottom quintile
vs
1.9% tax rate for the top 1%

 

[Gokul43201]

1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?

I did it fairly comfortably, for over 5 years. And while I was single with no dependents, I was also living in an urban area. I imagine it's probably easier to live on that income in rural parts of the country. Harder if you have a dependent.

2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?

Sorry about what? I would hope you'd feel sorry for any law abiding citizen who has suffered an injustice, irrespective of how much they earn.

 

[mheslep]

1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?

First, I've personally done it on less back in the grad school days. Second those are wages for individuals, not households, to include some high school student working at the mall, or some illegal alien with a bogus ssn living in house of twenty plus people.

 

[mheslep]

I did it fairly comfortably, for over 5 years.

Just saw this. Mac and cheese, tea, is all one needs for an all night-er.

 

[Al68]

Three questions:
1. How do 23.6 million households survive on $15,300 a year?
2. Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $535.75 an hour take home?
3. Does asking the above two questions confirm that I'm a Marxist?

1. Not very comfortably, unless it's just a single person with no bills.
2. No. Why would you?
3. If it did, I would be one, too. Nobody has suggested such a thing.

How can someone really believe that the difference between themselves and people who disagree with them is whether or not they feel sorry for rich people or don't think it's hard to be poor? Is Democratic Party propaganda really that effective?

ps. I did determine the effective tax rates for all of the quintiles and percents. Seems quite progressive to me.

Tell that to the members here who repeatedly insist, after being shown that data repeatedly, that it's not only not progressive, but that rich people in general pay little in taxes, while working and poor people pay a lot.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The bottom quintile pays a tax, even though they and the second quintile both get the EITC, because excise and social security taxes are a bit regressive:

10.3% tax rate for the bottom quintile
vs
1.9% tax rate for the top 1%

There are <= 61 million people in the bottom quintile. According to the BLS (using their latest figures, November 2010), there are 30 million unemployed and 2.5 million more marginally attached to the labor force (people who don't have jobs but want jobs and have looked for a job in the past year, even though they aren't currently looking). On this basis alone, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work at all, and so presumably pays essentially no tax.

Of course there are more people who aren't in the labor force, and I'm not sure how this is handled by the statistics. The labor force participation rate is certainly low enough (~64%) that if every person in the US was counted, there would be no bottom-quintile persons in the labor force at all, and all in the second quintile would be either out of the labor force or unemployed. I assume this is not the case (surely they don't count babies in the quintiles?) but I don't know what is. If the only people counted were those in the labor force (employed + unemployed) and the MAttLF, then there would be 199 million people in the quintiles, in which case the unemployed and MAttLF would account for 82% of the bottom quintile. (I don't see how the numbers could get any better for the bottom quintile, since any additional people that are included don't make money and so are in the bottom quintile.)

My numbers are too shaky at this point to see what kind of money the employed people in the bottom quintile could make, but it's hard for me to imagine that the taxes they would pay on it would exceed the EITC and welfare for the whole quintile. What think you?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Edit: Nothing against OmCheeto, who rocks, but a clarification:

2005 Post Tax Wages (assuming a 2000 hour work year)

______________________yearly_____monthly___hourly
Lowest Quintile _____$15,300 _____$1,275 ______$7.65
Second Quintile _____$33,700 _____$2,808 _____$16.85
Middle Quintile _____$50,200 _____$4,183 _____$25.10
Fourth Quintile _____$70,300 _____$5,858 _____$35.15
Highest Quintile ___$172,200 ____$14,350 _____$86.10

All Quintiles _______$67,400 _____$5,617 _____$33.70

Top 10% ____________$246,300 ____$20,525 ____$123.15
Top 5% _____________$369,800 ____$30,817 ____$184.90
Top 1% ___________$1,071,500 ____$89,292 ____$535.75

Hmm. I think the assumption is unwarranted and misleading. While a quick Google search did not give me the numbers, I've seen statistics on numbers of hours worked by quintile (both by household and individually) and it's pretty extreme. On one hand, most of the bottom quintile doesn't work (this is a "we should feel sorry for them" sort of thing, not a "they are lazy" thing), even when the country is not in a recession. On the other, the top quintile works a lot -- 55 or 60 hours a week, maybe? So while assuming 2000 hours per week is reasonable for the middle and fourth quintiles, it's not for the second quintile (which has trouble finding full-time work) and top quintile (which work long hours on average), and it's extremely inaccurate for the bottom quintile (most of whom don't have work).

Of course this may not change conclusions if $60 per hour is considered "high" in the same way $85 per hour is. (I've rounded to the nearest $5 per hour; I'm not comfortable giving more precise numbers without actual data!)