If you are going to put everyone into the federal tax system then the first order of business is to create a totally progressive tax system. For example, 1%, then the next level would be 2% and so on. Right now the rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, and then 35%. The jumps are too severe. What most people do not understand is that when they go up in a bracket, that only the increased income is taxed at the higher bracket. Even so, the jumps are too severe. The biggest change that would have to occur would have to start with Social Security. The first change would in fact have to come from the government. They would have to finally admit that the whole system is not an annuity, but just another tax. The next step would be to limit who and how much someone can draw. The intent of Social Security is that it would be a safety net for those who cannot take care of themselves, not an entitlement for life. You mentioned people taking things into their own hands. Well, who has not drawn unemployment when they were entitled to it? Who doesn't plan on taking social security when it is available? The list goes on and on. Do I use the system? Absolutely! I use it to help subsidize my new truck, my computers, my travels and whatever else the law allows. In turn, my truck is American made and the vast majority of my travel is in the US. I can't buy an American made computer because there is no such thing. Personally I'd love to see import duties on everything as a way to cut the deficit. Let's tax those that are taking advantage of the US while not contributing anything to the US.
Thanks, twini, for jumping back in there. I know you're on vacation, but this stuff must be like second nature for you. It seems to me that a flat tax solves that problem to an even greater extent by having no jumps, at all. It also accomplishes the goal of having the poor pay less/the rich more, automatically; is simpler to administer, and strikes people as inherently more fair. So do I, but I don't think it's a good idea to set up a tax system this way. It seems inherently unfair to tax others less, and me more, because I make different life choices- by not marrying, having kids, borrowing to purchase a home, contributing to a particular religious organization, etc. I'm annoyed to have to pay for somebody else's decision to finance the propagation of religious beliefs I don't hold, for example. Every time I turn on the set and see a televangelist, I know I'm paying, via my taxes, to support his operation in the form of tax subsidies to his followers. Eliminating all exemptions, deductions, etc., on personal income taxation removes this unfairness: it would also result in a lot more taxes being collected from those who now pay nothing, or very little. This strikes me as a suggestion every fiscal conservative should get behind: social security has always been a pass through of money from those who are working to those who are disabled, or retired, without regard to whether they actually need the money. It still is, and people need to be told that. And, I agree with the suggestion implied in your post for means testing: there is no reason those who are working should have to pay taxes to just be passed through to other Americans- who could include people as rich as Warren Buffet. You're now the first, besides myself, to propose a genuine cut to government spending (I proposed a cost saving cut to the range of services covered by medicare, on another thread): best thing about your suggestion is that there would be a guaranteed cut to the taxes that go with it. Making the changes you suggest to Social Security would end all talk of it being insolvent, as the class of those receiving benefits would drop to a much smaller percentage of our retirees- only those who would otherwise not have enough money to provide the the necessities of life. It will be interesting to see if any of the other posters are willing to get on board for this proposed cut in government spending: this one is a biggie.
One topic of discussion up here in Canada surrounding "Old Age Pension", "Canada Pension Plan" (we have both) is to raise the age of eligibility. Currently you can begin recieving it at age 60, although at a reduced rate, you recieve 100% at age 65. With the average life expectancy rates having increased approximately 10 years from when these programs were introduced, it is quite an added burden. The average life expectancy in Canada is about 78, so that means you are recieving this government handout for about 13 years. However, that average life expectancy is based on 100% of the population, many whom will die before age 65. The average age of death of someone who has made it to 65 is probably (and I am guessing here) about 82 or 83. This means that they will be recieving supplements for almost 20 years. Raising the age of eligibilty to 67 or 68 reduces the average payout and also reduces the amount of people that can actually recieve an income (as some that live to be 65 will be dead by 68).
That's true, B&B, reducing the pool of those eligible to receive benefits does reduce the cost of the program, and we have already started raising the retirement age here, in stages. However, limiting payouts to those retirees/disabled who actually need the money goes much further than that to limit the cost of the program: we have lots of retirees who are fairly well to do, many of them owning their houses, outright, and having other sources of income, and wealth. They may live better, as a result of having working men and women turn over money to them, via payroll taxes, but it's not fair to tax people for this, unless there is a real need for public support.
Totally agree with that, except, I know they have tried it, not in the sense that those ineligible don't recieve it, but everyone recieves it and then they "claw back" the money from those that recieved it but had an income over a certain level. This apparently creates as many problems as it fixes because now there is a whole bunch of other stuff added to the tax laws.
Social security retirement Everybody in the U.S. that wants to collect social security retirement benefits has to apply for it: the difference in the proposal made is that they would then also have to prove a need for it, before any payments would be started. This will remove the scandal that now exists in the system of working people paying taxes which then, in many cases, are passed on to wealthy people, and others, who simply don't have a current need for the support of the taxpayers. I think implementing twini's suggestion would result in an immediate drop in the amount of payroll taxes required, since we would no longer be supporting retirees and disabled people who didn't need the help of the public. Everybody, and every business, pays a lot in payroll taxes: I pay, as a self-employed person, 15.3% in "payroll" taxes, alone. I'd like to know how much of the money I sweated for, then paid out in payroll taxes, ended up in the hands of people far more affluent that I am....
Meaningful cuts in taxes, etc. Zackman, you've declined to endorse any of the plans suggested, so far, to get the 47% of Americans, who pay no income tax, to start paying income tax, or to contribute financially to their national government through a national sales tax, at retail. Is the reduction in social security payouts we're discussing, here, appealing to you, as a way of bringing the cost of one of those largest of government programs under control, and removing the unfairness to working people that now exists in the program? Anyone else, besides twini and I, willing to consider giving up some benefit they are now receiving, or are potentially in line for, which must be paid for by other taxpayers? If so, be specific, so it will mean something. The country is full of people who just pay lip service to the idea of cutting government expenses, and never put their money where their mouth is: you can find lots of them at any tea party you care to attend. Cutting government expenses has to begin with the question, "OK, what are you willing to give up?" No progress is made because few are willing to even consider giving up anything they might benefit from, or cuts to any program they personally favor, and the process of cutting government expenditures in meaningful ways remains at a standstill.
my indian card which is a federal entitlement numerous benefits including free medical, free dental, free drugs, free college for me and my kids and much more including food and housing provisions for me and my family should we ever need them why the hell should i be given this simply because some relative of mine (who was a full blooded cherokee indian) signed a treaty in 1909 with the US government makes no sense at all I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS my point is there are tons of things that should happen and we could spend weeks on this shit, but the bottom line is we have to make government in all aspects smaller in every way possible and stop worrying about hurting feelings and political alliances again my personal pet peeve is the insatiable Desire of our governments (local, state, federal) to make new laws if we could just make a pact to start getting rid of soooooo damn many of these stupid ass laws!!!! rob
Thanks, diamondheaded, for suggesting something that could be cut, or eliminated, that you potentially could have a direct benefit from. These things probably don't amount to much in the great scheme of things, not like social security, or medicare/medicaid, but it's worth having a look at. That you, as a part Indian, should receive special consideration, rather than be treated as all your fellow citizens may be, is questionable, I agree. However, are Indians also covered by social security, and medicare/medicaid, or are they excluded, because the law provides for them an alternative way, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs? ____________________ I was aware of the other benefits, but what kind and how much assistance is available to Indians to help pay for university educations, other than loans? And, to receive the other benefits you spoke of, would you have to live on a reservation, or go to the Indian Health Service Clinics and Hospitals?
Bureau of Indian Affairs The benefits diamondheaded spoke of appear to be aimed at helping the native Americans maintain their cultural identity, customs and languages, mainly through isolating them. Info about educational programs for Indians can be found here, for those who are curious- http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/ServiceOverview/IndianEducation/index.htm - and general information about the ways you assist the Indian Tribes through payment of your income tax dollars (addressing only the 53% of working Americans who Zackman says are still contributing)- http://www.bia.gov/WhatWeDo/index.htm _________________________
