Politics

[Wild Bill]

But you and I can certainly discuss tax reform objectively, regardless of the interests of our client base. (Full disclosure-- if the individual exemption gets lowered, many more people need estate planning).

At what point would they consider renouncing their citizenship?

 

[wizards8507]

But if you're going to assert a moral critique of specific taxes, the estate tax has more to recommend it than most.

Except that any negatives attributable to the estate tax are cumulative, i.e. in addition to the negatives of taxes already levied on earnings throughout one's life. A high earner has already paid income tax on whatever wealth he is able to accumulate and the estate tax compounds the usurpation by taxing those same dollars again.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Because the intent of distributing it in any fashion they choose shouldn't be impacted by the federal government, IMO, if the transfer is not disruptive.

I still don't see the distinction from other types of taxation. Income taxes disrupt how we earn. Capital gains taxes disrupt how we invest. Consumption taxes disrupt how we spend. Those are all major components of the economy. Wealth transfer taxes only disrupt how we transfer wealth to others, and only for a very small % of ultra-wealthy Americans. And most of that disruption happens to incentivize charitable giving over turning one's own children into lazy rentiers, so again, I'd argue an estate tax is preferable on a lot of levels.

I would absolutely be on your side if there was clear empirical evidence that there were 1,000's of Rockefellers out there, but there isn't. Yes, there is wealth being passed. But that wealth isn't turning into multi-generational wealth, which is the intent of the tax. I can't be for fixing something when it's not broken, especially when it costs so much to begin with.

Our tax code is broken, and reform is badly needed. A more effective estate tax would allow us to reduce marginal rates on the taxes that truly impact the economy.

At what point would they consider renouncing their citizenship?

Who knows? It would probably have to be pretty high. And even then, I think most people would just give it all away to a favorite charity before they'd leave the country.

Except that any negatives attributable to the estate tax are cumulative, i.e. in addition to the negatives of taxes already levied on earnings throughout one's life. A high earner has already paid income tax on whatever wealth he is able to accumulate and the estate tax compounds the usurpation by taxing those same dollars again.

Governments do this all the time. When a corporation makes an annual profit, it pays tax at the entity level. When the corporation makes a distribution on ownership to the stockholders, they pay capital gains tax on it. When the stockholders spend it, they pay sales tax. And then the cycle repeats with whatever merchant they gave the money to.

See my posts above about wealth transfer taxes being no different than consumption or income taxes. Taxation is unavoidable. The only questions are: (1) what; and (2) how much? Good taxes are progressive, efficient and minimally disruptive. The estate tax checks all those boxes.

 

[MartyIrish]

Not to mention....What evidence do you have that our federal government can be more efficient with money I was leaving to take care of my kids and grandkids?

 

[MartyIrish]

It's kinda funny....while taxation is necessary, I totally agree, we argue the subject of tax rates and "how much"....

Yet our federal government, time and time again, has proven to be a losing investment and totally irresponsible with our money.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Not to mention....What evidence do you have that our federal government can be more efficient with money I was leaving to take care of my kids and grandkids?

You could make the same argument against any tax. And how do you propose we compare "efficiency" between government spending and private spending? The ends of such spending barely overlap, if at all.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's kinda funny....while taxation is necessary, I totally agree, we argue the subject of tax rates and "how much"....

Yet our federal government, time and time again, has proven to be a losing investment and totally irresponsible with our money.

I'm a big fan of the new guy

 

[MartyIrish]

You could make the same argument against any tax. And how do you propose we compare "efficiency" between government spending and private spending? The ends of such spending barely overlap, if at all.

I guess my point, would be, that with any new discussions on taxation, it should not begin with adding...but auditing the current situation.

But we don't do that. It's more, more, more. Education is a beaming example. We think we can solve the education issue by spending more. We spend way more than any country in the world...yet we lag behind.

The post office is another one. Just dump more money in and it'll work itself out.


Ask any proponent of tax increases what the number is. What is the number we need to run efficiently? They can't answer. And it's designed that way. Hell, if you never have to be responsible for spending, why not blame lack of funds?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess my point, would be, that with any new discussions on taxation, it should not begin with adding...but auditing the current situation.

But we don't do that. It's more, more, more. Education is a beaming example. We think we can solve the education issue by spending more. We spend way more than any country in the world...yet we lag behind.

The post office is another one. Just dump more money in and it'll work itself out.

Ask any proponent of tax increases what the number is. What is the number we need to run efficiently? They can't answer. And it's designed that way. Hell, if you never have to be responsible for spending, why not blame lack of funds?

I think you've got the wrong read on me. I'm not in favor of simply raising taxes or adding new ones. Tax reform should arguably be the most urgent legislative priority for our Congress, and making that happen will largely involve simplifying the IRC and closing loopholes in order to lower marginal rates across the board.

Increasing revenue through sources like the estate tax will also make the process far easier; since it would be sold as a political victory for the Democrats, the GOP could use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for something much more meaningful-- tax relief for middle class families. But that would require a degree of populism and political courage they haven't displayed in quite some time. Not to mention that it would be unpopular with the donor class every Congressman has to suck up to in order to remain in office.

Despite its importance, tax reform won't be easy to pass. And Norquist-style blanket refusals to consider any sort of increase are especially unhelpful. If you want to lower taxes in one area, you've got to be able to articulate another area in which you're OK with an increase, and why. Otherwise, we end up with deadlock; which is just fine for the 1%, and the legislators they own. But it sucks for the rest of us.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess my point, would be, that with any new discussions on taxation, it should not begin with adding...but auditing the current situation.

But we don't do that. It's more, more, more. Education is a beaming example. We think we can solve the education issue by spending more. We spend way more than any country in the world...yet we lag behind.

The post office is another one. Just dump more money in and it'll work itself out.


Ask any proponent of tax increases what the number is. What is the number we need to run efficiently? They can't answer. And it's designed that way. Hell, if you never have to be responsible for spending, why not blame lack of funds?

Just to point out that some private industries are that way as well, just look healthcare in the US. We spend more then anyone else yet we don't have the best outcomes on many objective measures (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc).

As the saying goes, what someone calls "waste or inefficiency" is someone else's profit.

Also the Post Office is a marginal example as the Post Office wants to make changes to make it less of a dumpster fire but our shitty ass congress won't let them make the changes.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I guess my point, would be, that with any new discussions on taxation, it should not begin with adding...but auditing the current situation.

But we don't do that. It's more, more, more.

tax increases != spending increases

Taking the position of opposing all new taxes, as the Republicans have said verbatim is their platform in a number of political debates, will also put the country on the road towards fiscal irresponsibility. In fact they all raised their hands and rejected a 10-to-1 cuts-for-taxes scenario in 2012. Is that not sorta insane?

Ask any proponent of tax increases what the number is. What is the number we need to run efficiently? They can't answer.

Speaking of roads... the $00.184/gal tax funding out Highway Trust Fund hasn't been increased since 1993, creating a situation where we run deficits every year and simply can't maintain our roads and bridges. According to Charles Marohn, just to reach just the minimum level of maintenance we would need to bring that tax up to like $00.78/gal.

Chances of that happening? 0%.

Now how is that not fiscal irresponsibility?

 

[scUM Hater]

Just to point out that some private industries are that way as well, just look healthcare in the US. We spend more then anyone else yet we don't have the best outcomes on many objective measures (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc).

As the saying goes, what someone calls "waste or inefficiency" is someone else's profit.

Also the Post Office is a marginal example as the Post Office wants to make changes to make it less of a dumpster fire but our shitty ass congress won't let them make the changes.

What are you doing out of the drinking thread? Haha

 

[irishog77]

tax increases != spending increases

Taking the position of opposing all new taxes, as the Republicans have said verbatim is their platform in a number of political debates, will also put the country on the road towards fiscal irresponsibility. In fact they all raised their hands and rejected a 10-to-1 cuts-for-taxes scenario in 2012. Is that not sorta insane?



Speaking of roads... the $00.184/gal tax funding out Highway Trust Fund hasn't been increased since 1993, creating a situation where we run deficits every year and simply can't maintain our roads and bridges. According to Charles Marohn, just to reach just the minimum level of maintenance we would need to bring that tax up to like $00.78/gal.

Chances of that happening? 0%.

Now how is that not fiscal irresponsibility?

While the bolded may be technically correct, what is the purpose of tax increases? To collect it...but not spend it? What is the likelihood of our government acting in that manner? Never mind the notion that the budgetary aim of our government isn't to make a profit, but to merely pay for its programs.

 

[irishog77]

No one is arguing against that. I would argue that the sweet spot for taxation is closer to the Clinton years not the Bush years.

I will also add that while the theory is that it throttles production, the truth is that for many of our largest GDP growth years (since WWII ended) we had significantly higher top tier tax rates.
Here is a look at GDP Growth. United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2015 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Here is a look at tax rates.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

Right. I was just pointing out that more...doesn't necessarily mean more.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I still don't see the distinction from other types of taxation. Income taxes disrupt how we earn. Capital gains taxes disrupt how we invest. Consumption taxes disrupt how we spend. Those are all major components of the economy. Wealth transfer taxes only disrupt how we transfer wealth to others, and only for a very small % of ultra-wealthy Americans. And most of that disruption happens to incentivize charitable giving over turning one's own children into lazy rentiers, so again, I'd argue an estate tax is preferable on a lot of levels.



Our tax code is broken, and reform is badly needed. A more effective estate tax would allow us to reduce marginal rates on the taxes that truly impact the economy.



Who knows? It would probably have to be pretty high. And even then, I think most people would just give it all away to a favorite charity before they'd leave the country.



Governments do this all the time. When a corporation makes an annual profit, it pays tax at the entity level. When the corporation makes a distribution on ownership to the stockholders, they pay capital gains tax on it. When the stockholders spend it, they pay sales tax. And then the cycle repeats with whatever merchant they gave the money to.

See my posts above about wealth transfer taxes being no different than consumption or income taxes. Taxation is unavoidable. The only questions are: (1) what; and (2) how much? Good taxes are progressive, efficient and minimally disruptive. The estate tax checks all those boxes.

My comment on it not being broken was wrt wealth accumulation spanning multiple generations. If it isn't a problem, there is no need for changing the tax.

 

[MartyIrish]

Just to point out that some private industries are that way as well, just look healthcare in the US. We spend more then anyone else yet we don't have the best outcomes on many objective measures (life expectancy, infant mortality, etc).

As the saying goes, what someone calls "waste or inefficiency" is someone else's profit.

Also the Post Office is a marginal example as the Post Office wants to make changes to make it less of a dumpster fire but our shitty ass congress won't let them make the changes.

Noted. But they are private. Not tax payer funded.

I can fail all I want on my dime. But If I start dragging money outta your pocket to fail, there's a problem. (and we could argue loopholes all day, so lets not go there...and I am against all government bailouts, so I won't entertain arguing about that either)


And Post office doesn't want to "make changes"...they want more money. I say, shut them down and allow free enterprise to carry our mail. Much more efficient. Have you ever asked "why" the US government is responsible for our mail?

 

[MartyIrish]

tax increases != spending increases

Taking the position of opposing all new taxes, as the Republicans have said verbatim is their platform in a number of political debates, will also put the country on the road towards fiscal irresponsibility. In fact they all raised their hands and rejected a 10-to-1 cuts-for-taxes scenario in 2012. Is that not sorta insane?



Speaking of roads... the $00.184/gal tax funding out Highway Trust Fund hasn't been increased since 1993, creating a situation where we run deficits every year and simply can't maintain our roads and bridges. According to Charles Marohn, just to reach just the minimum level of maintenance we would need to bring that tax up to like $00.78/gal.

Chances of that happening? 0%.

Now how is that not fiscal irresponsibility?

- Well, given all the tax increases we've had over the history of our county...and we are still a financial trainwreck...I'd be willing to say that government has a spending problem, not a taking in money problem. Wouldn't you?

And why do we run deficets in those funds? Because they are allocating those funds to other things. Think: Levee fund in New Orleans.

Before Katrina: Hey! Don't worry about it...we can borrow from the Levee fund

After Katrina: Shoot....uhhhhh...uhhhhhh Blame Republicans/FEMA.



Same thing is going on RIGHT NOW with Social Security. We keep borrowing outta accounts that are set aside for good intentions. THAT is our problem. Then who gets stuck with the tab? You and I. And government plays their part by pitting us against each other on these issues so the pail is always full

 

[Buster Bluth]

- Well, given all the tax increases we've had over the history of our county...and we are still a financial trainwreck...I'd be willing to say that government has a spending problem, not a taking in money problem. Wouldn't you?

I'm of the opinion that it's definitely both. Earlier this week I watched McConnell get on 60 Minutes and bitch about Obama's spending but he seemed to forget that when George Bush was in office they cut taxes by a few trillion, launched two wars which cost trillions, and subsidized about a trillion in prescription pills so they'd guarantee a red Florida in '04.

That sort of spending without tax increases is laughable, in my opinion.

I also question "all the tax increases we've had," which ones? I say that at the risk of sounding uninformed haha but aren't taxes lower thanks to Bush tax cuts, etc? I think things like effective corporate tax rate, capital gains, income tax rate are lower than they were under His Holiest the Most Honorable Eagle King Ronald Reagan, and those years were peachy. Obamacare is the 800-pound elephant--err, donkey, in the room there, I get that.

And why do we run deficets in those funds? Because they are allocating those funds to other things. Think: Levee fund in New Orleans.

Before Katrina: Hey! Don't worry about it...we can borrow from the Levee fund

After Katrina: Shoot....uhhhhh...uhhhhhh Blame Republicans/FEMA.

Same thing is going on RIGHT NOW with Social Security. We keep borrowing outta accounts that are set aside for good intentions. THAT is our problem. Then who gets stuck with the tab? You and I. And government plays their part by pitting us against each other on these issues so the pail is always full

I think that is totally fair. There are obvious social security reforms needed but our politicians collectively blow.

 

[pkt77242]

Noted. But they are private. Not tax payer funded.

I can fail all I want on my dime. But If I start dragging money outta your pocket to fail, there's a problem. (and we could argue loopholes all day, so lets not go there...and I am against all government bailouts, so I won't entertain arguing about that either)


And Post office doesn't want to "make changes"...they want more money. I say, shut them down and allow free enterprise to carry our mail. Much more efficient. Have you ever asked "why" the US government is responsible for our mail?

You would be wrong then. The postmaster general has proposed ending Saturday delivery to save money on gas, vehicle wear and tear, and labor but Congress won't let him. They have also wanted to close thousands of rural post offices but Congress keeps blocking many of them as well (though they have managed to close some).
Postal Service Cuts: Postmaster General Stumps For Closing Post Offices, Ending Saturday Delivery
Montanans urge postmaster general to keep rural post offices open

- Well, given all the tax increases we've had over the history of our county...and we are still a financial trainwreck...I'd be willing to say that government has a spending problem, not a taking in money problem. Wouldn't you?

And why do we run deficets in those funds? Because they are allocating those funds to other things. Think: Levee fund in New Orleans.

Before Katrina: Hey! Don't worry about it...we can borrow from the Levee fund

After Katrina: Shoot....uhhhhh...uhhhhhh Blame Republicans/FEMA.



Same thing is going on RIGHT NOW with Social Security. We keep borrowing outta accounts that are set aside for good intentions. THAT is our problem. Then who gets stuck with the tab? You and I. And government plays their part by pitting us against each other on these issues so the pail is always full

It is just as easy to say that the problem is all of our tax cuts. When many of these programs were passed we had significantly higher taxes. Shockingly we keep cutting taxes and have a revenue problem. Yet you only blame spending. We have a revenue problem, we need to take in more money and cut spending. We got here because as Buster pointed out, we keep cutting taxes (thank you Bush and Reagan) while spending more. To pretend that we only have a spending problem is ignoring the fact that we keep cutting taxes.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You would be wrong then. The postmaster general has proposed ending Saturday delivery to save money on gas, vehicle wear and tear, and labor but Congress won't let him. They have also wanted to close thousands of rural post offices but Congress keeps blocking many of them as well (though they have managed to close some).
Postal Service Cuts: Postmaster General Stumps For Closing Post Offices, Ending Saturday Delivery
Montanans urge postmaster general to keep rural post offices open



It is just as easy to say that the problem is all of our tax cuts. When many of these programs were passed we had significantly higher taxes. Shockingly we keep cutting taxes and have a revenue problem. Yet you only blame spending. We have a revenue problem, we need to take in more money and cut spending. We got here because as Buster pointed out, we keep cutting taxes (thank you Bush and Reagan) while spending more. To pretend that we only have a spending problem is ignoring the fact that we keep cutting taxes.

Americans now take home 70% of their paycheck with about 30% going to the government. For those who work with commission in sales, bonus structure, or overtime, that number can drop to 60% per paycheck because of taxes.

The federal government, and in some cases state governments, have gotten so big and so involved that a third of one's labor now belongs to the government. Combine that with rising costs of living and stagnant salaries and you're going to find a lot of resistance to raising taxes.

 

[pkt77242]

Americans now take home 70% of their paycheck with about 30% going to the government. For those who work with commission in sales, bonus structure, or overtime, that number can drop to 60% per paycheck because of taxes.

The federal government, and in some cases state governments, have gotten so big and so involved that a third of one's labor now belongs to the government. Combine that with rising costs of living and stagnant salaries and you're going to find a lot of resistance to raising taxes.

I never argued that people wouldn't be resistant to it, I am pointing out that our taxes use to be significantly higher for 50+ years and that is when many of these programs were passed (medicare, social security, etc). Then we cut taxes and bitch about spending too much. Well of course once you cut the revenue, the spending is too high but too ignore that part of the problem is the fact that we cut taxes is ludicrous.

Do we have a spending problem. Yes, though part of that spending problem is something that many (but not all) conservatives don't want to touch which is the military.

Again we have a spending problem and a revenue problem.

Also where are you getting the stats for for percent of paychecks. Conservatives on here are always bitching about how half of the US doesn't pay income tax. So how is that working out (yes I get they don't get SS or Medicare/medicaid back but that is still a small percent)?

 

[Wild Bill]

I never argued that people wouldn't be resistant to it, I am pointing out that our taxes use to be significantly higher for 50+ years and that is when many of these programs were passed (medicare, social security, etc). Then we cut taxes and bitch about spending too much. Well of course once you cut the revenue, the spending is too high but too ignore that part of the problem is the fact that we cut taxes is ludicrous.

Do we have a spending problem. Yes, though part of that spending problem is something that many (but not all) conservatives don't want to touch which is the military.

Again we have a spending problem and a revenue problem.

Also where are you getting the stats for for percent of paychecks. Conservatives on here are always bitching about how half of the US doesn't pay income tax. So how is that working out (yes I get they don't get SS or Medicare/medicaid back but that is still a small percent)?

I wish I could keep that small percent to invest in a retirement account that'll actually exist when I retire.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I never argued that people wouldn't be resistant to it, I am pointing out that our taxes use to be significantly higher for 50+ years and that is when many of these programs were passed (medicare, social security, etc). Then we cut taxes and bitch about spending too much. Well of course once you cut the revenue, the spending is too high but too ignore that part of the problem is the fact that we cut taxes is ludicrous.

Do we have a spending problem. Yes, though part of that spending problem is something that many (but not all) conservatives don't want to touch which is the military.

Again we have a spending problem and a revenue problem.

Also where are you getting the stats for for percent of paychecks. Conservatives on here are always bitching about how half of the US doesn't pay income tax. So how is that working out (yes I get they don't get SS or Medicare/medicaid back but that is still a small percent)?

Hard working Americans are doing more than their share. The government needs to start cutting back and Project A isn't the US military. Not now, not in arguably the most dangerous time in our history. Do we need another Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Do we need big budgets cyber/ IT/ drones/ intel/ security? Hell yes. I'd start with EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, and Dept of Homeland Security. That's a start.

Your assertion is that we have a spending problem, but that we also need to raise taxes. That's absurd. That will crush middle class families (even moreso than they have been under Obama), and will hurt small and mid size businesses.

I'm glad you can at least acknowlege that we're spending ourselves into oblivion. Now imagine a scenario where the government spends less, yet brings in more. How so?

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” ---- JFK in 1963

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

That sort of spending without tax increases is laughable, in my opinion.

It's worse. It damaged America's fiscal well-being fundamentally...we still have not recovered.

The end result was the final deficit under the Bush administration of $1.8 Trillion...it has been decreasing every year since then. However, unless Congress raises taxes or eliminates EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, the budget won't be balanced.

The only other way to balance the budget would be to cut Social Security or Medicare (or both)

 

[MartyIrish]

It's insane to say that a corporation that takes in over 3.9 TRILLION(yes, with a "T") in income and payroll tax has a "cutting" issue...

LOL


I disagree totally. Again, when you have an endless supply of money it's easy to just say "we don't have enough"

 

[pkt77242]

Hard working Americans are doing more than their share. The government needs to start cutting back and Project A isn't the US military. Not now, not in arguably the most dangerous time in our history. Do we need another Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Do we need big budgets cyber/ IT/ drones/ intel/ security? Hell yes. I'd start with EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, and Dept of Homeland Security. That's a start.

Your assertion is that we have a spending problem, but that we also need to raise taxes. That's absurd. That will crush middle class families (even moreso than they have been under Obama), and will hurt small and mid size businesses.

I'm glad you can at least acknowlege that we're spending ourselves into oblivion. Now imagine a scenario where the government spends less, yet brings in more. How so?

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” ---- JFK in 1963

Yes JFK said that but it doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Seriously, you are so stuck to your ideology that you can't admit that cutting taxes has been part of the problem? That is like a family who took a lower paying job and increased their spending and then only blaming their increased spending for their money problems. Both are the reason that we got here, both are how we get out of it. To think otherwise is contrary to what most budget experts believe. Sorry.

Also it isn't so much Obama's policies that have hurt the middle class, it is what businesses have done. The average work has stagnant wages but the CEO's are getting raises faster than you can blink an eye. Look at how the US compares to the rest of the world.
CEO Compensation in the US Vs. the World | Chron.com

The ratio of CEO pay to the median salary for all other employees in the company provides a reference of how high CEO pay is. It's often used to compare CEO pay across countries. U.S. CEOs earn from 400 to 500 times the median salary for workers. For CEOs in the U.K., the ratio is 22; in France, it's 15; and in Germany it's 12.

Do I think that CEOs deserve to be paid well? Yes. Do I think that their pay has gotten out of control? Hell Yes. The government doesn't control how much the employees get paid, the company does and the companies have spoken and said lets keep raising the salaries of the people at the top, and screw the average worker.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Hard working Americans are doing more than their share. The government needs to start cutting back and Project A isn't the US military. Not now, not in arguably the most dangerous time in our history. Do we need another Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Do we need big budgets cyber/ IT/ drones/ intel/ security? Hell yes. I'd start with EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, and Dept of Homeland Security. That's a start.

That's only a start. You need to cut EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR of discretionary spending to balance the budget. That includes money for highways, ports, FAA, security, etc.

Your assertion is that we have a spending problem, but that we also need to raise taxes. That's absurd. That will crush middle class families (even moreso than they have been under Obama), and will hurt small and mid size businesses.

By cutting their taxes? How does a President crush people by lowering their taxes?

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” ---- JFK in 1963

This is correct when REAL tax rates exceed 50%. When they are in the 30's, 20's, and less reducing taxation does not spur economic activity to cover the loss of funding...it creates massive deficits.

 

[pkt77242]

I wish I could keep that small percent to invest in a retirement account that'll actually exist when I retire.

To say that they won't be there when you retire is a big fat lie. Sorry. If we do nothing to fix Social Security when the trust runs out it would still be paying something like 80% of the promised benefits.

Having said that there are some really easy fixes to make SS viable long term but our cowardly congress (both sides) won't do it.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Americans now take home 70% of their paycheck with about 30% going to the government. For those who work with commission in sales, bonus structure, or overtime, that number can drop to 60% per paycheck because of taxes.

The federal government, and in some cases state governments, have gotten so big and so involved that a third of one's labor now belongs to the government. Combine that with rising costs of living and stagnant salaries and you're going to find a lot of resistance to raising taxes.

Actually, you are just wrong here...not even close to being right.

American families pay less to the government now than they did from 1955 to 2005.

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[MartyIrish]

It's worse. It damaged America's fiscal well-being fundamentally...we still have not recovered.

The end result was the final deficit under the Bush administration of $1.8 Trillion...it has been decreasing every year since then. However, unless Congress raises taxes or eliminates EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, the budget won't be balanced.

The only other way to balance the budget would be to cut Social Security or Medicare (or both)

ummmmm....no. Obama has carried the largest debt of all time( over 6 trillion) Bushy is second (around 5.8)