dagblog - Comments for "Social Security Reform"

Yes

Marquis de Sea to Shining Sea — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:28:01 +0000

In reply to Is Canuckistanadaburg near

Yes

Is Canuckistanadaburg near

Orlando — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:28:45 +0000

In reply to I believe in

Is Canuckistanadaburg near Schenectady?

I believe in

Marquis de Sea to Shining Sea — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:05:26 +0000

In reply to Congratulations, Marquis, on

I believe in Canuckistanadaburg it is called universal old age pensions.

Congratulations, Marquis, on

acanuck — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:44:02 +0000

In reply to Social Security Reform

Congratulations, Marquis, on being the first official dagblog reader-blogger.

What is this "social security" of which you speak? Because if it's anything like single-payer health insurance, mandatory employment insurance, and universal old-age pensions, I'm all for it.

Taking the lid off is not

Marquis de Sea to Shining Sea — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:45:45 +0000

In reply to Taxing investment income I

Taking the lid off is not taxing it all, it is setting no maximum income beyond which there is no tax. Right now all your income over $100 K is exempt from payroll tax. I think we are having a semantic confusion.

Thank you. I have addressed

Marquis de Sea to Shining Sea — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:43:24 +0000

In reply to I third the appreciation for

Thank you. I have addressed the FICA regressive tax issue at the cross post. While it is not a perfect solution, by setting FICA as a floor tax on all income of all sorts and at all levels, one substantially reduces the regressiveness of the whole tax system while at the same time producing substantial revenue for important public programs. As I note there, those who pay FICA with income around $100 K are paying a marginal rate of 40 to 43 %, and those with substantially more income have a maximum marginal rate of 35%. This is outrageous.

I third the appreciation for

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:06:43 +0000

In reply to Social Security Reform

I third the appreciation for the the first reader blog.

One challenge with SS reform is that it's long been represented as some kind of pension fund. Most people think that the government raids the SS "fund" and that it will run out of money some day so that we won't get back what we put in. But as I'm sure you're aware, there is no such fund. While the benefits we receive are tied to the payroll taxes we have paid, payroll tax income does not go directly to SS. FICA is essentially a tax and a regressive tax at that.

Regressive taxation is bad, so you are quite right that the ceiling should be eliminated. But eliminating the tax ceiling while maintaining a benefit ceiling is not politically viable as long as people believe that SS is like a pension. People would perceive the government to be stealing their pensions rather than simply raising their taxes.

Unfortunately, the trend of SS reform proposals tend to go the other direction--treating SS as a pension fund which needs to be protected from government greed, e.g. Al Gore's lockbox.

Taxing investment income I

Orlando — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:38:13 +0000

In reply to Rich folks are where the

Taxing investment income I agree with. Making money from simply having money is bizarre. However, I still think you can't take it all. I guess that means I'm not a Marxist.

Rich folks are where the

Marquis de Sea to Shining Sea — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:13:58 +0000

In reply to I'm not saying don't raise

Rich folks are where the money is. Raising the ceiling only goes after the next batch of not so rich. Where I urged "raising" in my last comment, I should have said eliminating the ceiling and also taxing investment income.

I'm not saying don't raise

Orlando — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:04:24 +0000

In reply to Raising the ceiling on

I'm not saying don't raise the ceiling. I'm saying don't eliminate it.