Ok, smart guy. YOU solve the deficit!

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

For instance, concerning Social Security. The first thing I would do is remove the $106,000 cap on taxation.

So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"

That's why they have a cap. Because the BENEFIT is capped. Raising the taxable income only helps if they simply steal that money, and don't raise the pay out.

If that person is sure to get out way less than they put in, why shouldn't any other SS beneficiary get out much less than they get in? If they do, then everyone arguing that SS is retirement, and sacred can just stfu. It will have been demonstrated to be nothing more than a charity ponzi scheme.

Cut pay outs instead.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

The taxes collected wobble between 16 and 20 percent regardless of the marginal tax rate. So either more people are paying at the lower rate, or the economy grows, otherwise the collections should have plunged.

Amount of tax collected is not an accurate measure of economic growth. GDP and employment are.

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Amount of tax collected is not an accurate measure of economic growth. GDP and employment are.

Income tax collected as a function of GDP remains remarkably constant. The marginal rates drop, taxes stay about the same (collected).

What happened?

Either more people start falling into the higher brackets (people earning more), or the GDP increases enough to offset the presumably lower returns you'd expect at lower rates.

In the end it doesn't matter. The OP's NYT calculator is suggesting that a tax reduction means a reduction in revenues. That's what that thing does. Select a tax cut, and it "costs" the budget. In RL, however, tax cuts have happened and government revenue has not dropped in any meaningful way in the long term (maybe the first year it takes effect (catching people who plan ahead long term, basically).

That's the relationship between this thread and tax rates. If the calculator is going to claim a cost due to a tax reduction, they need to demonstrate that the economy won't correct to bring revenues into the "normal" range as a % of total economic activity (when it always seems to).

I'm not arguing that any, arbitrary tax cut would increase growth, but clearly tax burden plays some role on economic decision making, and the economy corrects for most tax changes fairly quickly (resulting in constant revenue). That's just fact. Revenues are remarkably constant.

Note also that they give a big positive for adding a carbon tax, but how can they tell what negative it might have on the economy to start taxing, well, everything, for carbon? Economics is not science. It's not. If economic theory was actually predictive...

I don;t even take a calculator like the one on the NYT with a grain of salt to the extent that ANY of the variables might possibly affect the economy in general (and hence government revenues). Astronomy (my background) is what I'd call a "zeroith order" science in many cases, sometimes 1st order. Meaning in an expansion, only the first terms we know enough to talk about . Unlike physics in general where certain things (mechanics, EM, etc) can be characterized to a very fine level. Economics isn't even zeroith order. Making a calculator based on what is in effect guess work (predictions for 2015, much less 2030) is silly.

Simpson-Bowles suggested capping spending at 21% of GDP. That's too high. Cap it lower, then cut ruthlessly, and cut based on the % of the budget something is. SS and medicare need to take large hits.

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Well that solves your deficit.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by tater

So someone making 212,000 a year should have to pay $32,436 in FICA instead of $16,218, but should get the exact same benefit, even though it is supposed to be a "trust find?"

Yup! That's exactly what I meant.

Social security is not a trust fund, it is an insurance fund. The official name of the primary program is "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". It is managed under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now the money, after being collected is accounted to a trust fund, but that does not mean Social Security is a trust fund. It is an insurance fund, meaning that people are expected to pay more into it in order to fund it.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Yup! That's exactly what I meant.

Social security is not a trust fund, it is an insurance fund. The official name of the primary program is "Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". It is managed under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Now the money, after being collected is accounted to a trust fund, but that does not mean Social Security is a trust fund. It is an insurance fund, meaning that people are expected to pay more into it in order to fund it.

No, with insurance, I pay a premium. The more I pay in premiums, the better coverage I get.

Or are you suggesting a life insurance policy with a $1000/month premium would be worth less than one at $1/mo?

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

^^^ they seem to think there is a trust fund. Silly SSA.

The Social Security Trust Funds are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. These funds are accounts managed by the Department of the Treasury. They serve two purposes: (1) they provide an accounting mechanism for tracking all income to and disbursements from the trust funds, and (2) they hold the accumulated assets. These accumulated assets provide automatic spending authority to pay benefits. The Social Security Act limits trust fund expenditures to benefits and administrative costs.
Benefits to retired workers and their families, and to families of deceased workers, are paid from the OASI Trust Fund. Benefits to disabled workers and their families are paid from the DI Trust Fund. More than 98 percent of total disbursements in 2009 were for benefit payments.

A Board of Trustees oversees the financial operations of the trust funds. The Board reports annually to the Congress on the financial status of the trust funds.

How are the trust funds invested? By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

What you want is for someone to buy insurance at gunpoint, but get worse value for every dollar over a certain premium.

Your suggestion is NOT insurance, but rather a regular welfare program that takes money from one set of people, and hands it over to another based on arbitrary rules.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=wlf235r3

[Armistead]

Close down about 100 useless US war bases in Europe leftover from the cold war, Europe alone is strong enough to deal with Russia, let them pay for it. I would place those bases along our southern border now that the Cartel controls over 50% of Mexico.

Folks, until banks and corporations are properly regulated to work for Americans we're headed for failure. Corporations don't care about taxes.
It doesn't matter how much they pay, they have enough tax shelters to cover it. They care about regulations or the lack of. The GOP wants less regulation which basically caused the last meltdown. Corporations again are making billions off taxpayers why most Americans suffer in the jobless recovery. Corporations are doing the same thing planning to make billions before the next meltdown, knowing they'll be bailed out once again by the tax dollar only to do it again and again.

I almost laugh when I hear the GOP say corporations pay most taxes. After their shelters they pay little. The average American making 50K a year pays almost 40% in total taxes, add them up, sales, gas, property. Almost every bill you get has several hidden taxes. Add SS and medicare, really a tax because most of us will never see it.

Sadly, their is now only one fix, as a herd weans out the weak, we will have to do the same so the strong and greedy can take us to the future, whatever that will be. SS and medicare will have to go, medical care for most, social programs, stop spending billions to keep the elderly alive a few more years, this will be the future.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Close down about 100 useless US war bases in Europe leftover from the cold war, Europe alone is strong enough to deal with Russia, let them pay for it. I would place those bases along our southern border now that the Cartel controls over 50% of Mexico.

Folks, until banks and corporations are properly regulated to work for Americans we're headed for failure. Corporations don't care about taxes.
It doesn't matter how much they pay, they have enough tax shelters to cover it. They care about regulations or the lack of. The GOP wants less regulation which basically caused the last meltdown. Corporations again are making billions off taxpayers why most Americans suffer in the jobless recovery. Corporations are doing the same thing planning to make billions before the next meltdown, knowing they'll be bailed out once again by the tax dollar only to do it again and again.

I almost laugh when I hear the GOP say corporations pay most taxes. After their shelters they pay little. The average American making 50K a year pays almost 40% in total taxes, add them up, sales, gas, property. Almost every bill you get has several hidden taxes. Add SS and medicare, really a tax because most of us will never see it.

Sadly, their is now only one fix, as a herd weans out the weak, we will have to do the same so the strong and greedy can take us to the future, whatever that will be. SS and medicare will have to go, medical care for most, social programs, stop spending billions to keep the elderly alive a few more years, this will be the future.

Sadly, you're right. All so Goldman Sachs and Monsanto can wring more dollars out of the system.

[tater]

A lower corporate income tax—but with zero exceptions of loopholes—would be preferable to what we have now, which is a high rate, with supertanker sized loopholes such that no one pays it.

Taxes are not the solution though. Stop spending. Stop spending. Stop spending.

Cut entitlements*. Cancel remaining "stimulus" pork.

*cut entitlement benefits. Right now, once again they are on the verge of a massive cut in Medicare reimbursement to docs. A 23% cut to start. Docs are still forced to do all the work, they'll just get paid less to do it. In addition, many extant contracts are pegged to medicare, so when medicare plunges, so will contractual agreements with real insurance. I'm fine with slashing medicare, but slash what is covered, not this nonsense of "covering" everything, but forcing docs to provide the care below cost. Hence no new medicare patients being taken by most docs now. Of course if they show in the ER, the docs have no choice, they HAVE to treat them even if they lose money on every case. So slash away at the program, but do it honestly, what we have now is like a law that guarantees that your plumbing problems MUST be fixed by a plumber and paid by the feds, but then the feds pay the plumber below his cost of materials. How would the plumbers' union respond to that?

[Armistead]

Medicare and SS are done for, Medicare alone owes out 60 trillion to those paid into it, SS is about 10 trillion. No way either can be substained. The baby boomers will break SS. A bigger issue is long term care, only a few percent have it. We have an even bigger medical crisis coming, this upcoming generation of obese people, disease that use to happen at old age will be in mass when people reach their 30's. Corporations and the medical industry will rake in billions...don't tell me there isn't a connection between food and drug, regulations, ect.. Course the government will keep raising SS retirement age to deal with that.

I'm 47, when I was in school you had a few obese people and maybe one hyperactive kid on meds. Today over 30% of kids are placed on either depressants or hyperactive meds before they leave school. Strange, we had gym grades 6-12, made to exercise, no fastfood lunches, ect. Many schools have dropped gym or it's optional. At our high school here at the lunch counter you can get a Wendy's burger or any fast food. Maybe it they ran the hell out of the kids like our gym coaches did us they wouldn't need meds to be calm.

We have one private school here where the kids garden 100 acres of veggies, little cost and healthy food that actually taste good.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by tater

A lower corporate income tax—but with zero exceptions of loopholes—would be preferable to what we have now, which is a high rate, with supertanker sized loopholes such that no one pays it.

Taxes are not the solution though. Stop spending. Stop spending. Stop spending.

Cut entitlements*. Cancel remaining "stimulus" pork.

*cut entitlement benefits. Right now, once again they are on the verge of a massive cut in Medicare reimbursement to docs. A 23% cut to start. Docs are still forced to do all the work, they'll just get paid less to do it. In addition, many extant contracts are pegged to medicare, so when medicare plunges, so will contractual agreements with real insurance. I'm fine with slashing medicare, but slash what is covered, not this nonsense of "covering" everything, but forcing docs to provide the care below cost. Hence no new medicare patients being taken by most docs now. Of course if they show in the ER, the docs have no choice, they HAVE to treat them even if they lose money on every case. So slash away at the program, but do it honestly, what we have now is like a law that guarantees that your plumbing problems MUST be fixed by a plumber and paid by the feds, but then the feds pay the plumber below his cost of materials. How would the plumbers' union respond to that?

Studies differ as they often do, but Doctor's income have increased between 700-2000% since 1970 depending on the field.....don't think they're hurting. The average Doctor visit last 3 minutes and cost $200.00 for basic need issues. I see my Neurologist 4 times a year. Each visit cost $400.00, never last longer than 2 minutes, just writes my meds and charges a full neurological exam. No doubt Doctors screw insurance and they in turn screw americans.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Am I the only one who is not reducing the nuclear arsenal and space spending?

Me too!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...oices=zxqmgjp0

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Studies differ as they often do, but Doctor's income have increased between 700-2000% since 1970 depending on the field.....don't think they're hurting. The average Doctor visit last 3 minutes and cost $200.00 for basic need issues. I see my Neurologist 4 times a year. Each visit cost $400.00, never last longer than 2 minutes, just writes my meds and charges a full neurological exam. No doubt Doctors screw insurance and they in turn screw americans.

My wife loses money on every medicaid patient visit. She's lucky to break even on medicare, even with her time not counted as more than some hourly worker.

Insurance company profit is a statistically insignificant % of total US healthcare delivery (1-2%), BTW.

The doc sees you for 2 minutes (my wife sees no one for 2 minutes, she's always in the room longer than that—when she has to tell someone they have cancer she spends 30-45 minutes in the room with them, min), but they have 6 employees, so they are seeing you for 14 man-minutes. Assuming the employees only make ~35k averaged, that means ~$22 just in labor cost for your 2 minute visit. Also, the charting takes longer than the 2 minutes (it's slower with EMR than paper, LOL). My wife sees at most 30 people a day, usually mid 20s in clinic. Call it 30. She's only seeing patients 7 hours a day, but is at work typically 10-11 hours. That means with paperwork, etc, her typical visit (7-10 minutes in the room with a patient every 14-15 min)) takes 22 minutes of her day. Times 6 employees (we'll call it 4.3 since they are not there as long as she is, only 8 hours) that's ~117 man-minutes per patient seen. Almost 2 hours.

That's ~$35 at employee time cost (ave hourly wage in office). If she made as much as my car mechanic charges per hour, $50 (my yard guy charges that much), then the time alone would be worth $134. Is 2 doctorates worth the same as a car mechanic? PLumbers get ~$90/hr I think. At that rate, the visits cost (no rent, insurance, etc included, just labor) $214. Is a surgeon worth a plumber? No, maybe more. Lesse... electricians charge about as much as plumbers... Lawyers? They bill between $200 and $1000 an hour. Your surgeon worth as much as a cut-rate lawyer? Then that visit cost $434, without physical overhead.

<EDIT> that was at my wife's time. Assume your doc sees 30, and only works 8 hours. At plumber/electrician rates the visit costs him 16 man-minutes (even if just 2 is in the room with you—30 is a LOT of patients, BTW, likely fewer are seen, raising all these costs). Assume 4 employees. That's 80 man-minutes including doc. So the labor cost is $142.67 for your 2 minute visit—assuming your doc's time is worth a plumber's time. And 8 hours is a short day to see 30 people. Likely 9-10 is a minimum, while seeing fewer, so this is a lowball.

[tater]

BTW, the reason docs charge more, and it grows so fast is THE GOVERNMENT.

Medicaid and medicare pay BELOW COST.

Docs (any that work in a hospital, ever) are FORCED to see medicaid and medicare. They MUST to be able to work in the hospital since those cases come into the ER and cannot be turned away.

Since they actually lose money out of pocket on those cases, they must charge more to real insurance to take up the slack. Government is the problem, not the solution.

BTW, all those employees the docs have, almost all work on paperwork. Care to guess what paperwork is the hardest to do, and which claims get rejected the most by insurance...

C'mon, you know the answer...

Medicare and Medicaid. 6 employees per doc at the wife's. 1 is a medical assistant, a fraction of 1 is reception, and the other 4.whatever do insurance. They'd need 1 person per doc, tops to deal with private insurance. Maybe 1 per 2 docs. The majority of the employees are to deal with the 2 government "insurance" plans. It's a cluster****.