There is policy afoot in the South Dakota Senate race. David Montgomery nicely encapsulates our four candidates' positions on Social Security. I'll encapsulate further: Republican Mike Rounds and True Republican Gordon Howie lean toward privatization. Democrat Rick Weiland and plucky-lucky Larry Pressler prefer making the Social Security tax fairer.
Rounds and Howie both squeal that increasing the Social Security tax to responsibly, directly, and reliably pay for America's favorite social safety net is wrong: "That's a $100 billion tax... the American people can't afford," whines Rounds. Keep in mind that the American people Rounds is talking about are not most of you; they are his country club friends who make more than $117,000 a year.
Weiland and Pressler both make the reasonable and progressive point that the burden of supporting Social Security ought to be borne proportionately by all income earners, not shouldered disproportionately by the lower and middle class. That simple fix beats taking Social Security away from people by forcing them to work longer (remind me: how is it progress for civilization to require people to work longer in the 21st century than they did in the 20th century?). And that simple fix is far superior to gambling Social Security on the stock market, the way privatizers Rounds and Howie would consider.
Even if we didn't have EB-5 to demonstrate the fact that Mike Rounds can't be trusted as Senator, a straight policy debate on key issues like Social Security would show that Weiland and Pressler can better protect the interests of all South Dakotans.
"Keep in mind that the American people Rounds is talking about are most of you"
Assuming this should have been "aren't" rather than "are"... and point taken. It is misleading and perhaps even intellectually dishonest for Rounds to suggest the American people cannot afford this "tax increase" when those who would be asked to increase their contribution are the very same group who most certainly COULD afford it.
Eliminate the Social Security cap on earnings and suddenly the system becomes solvent through decades upon decades longer than anticipated. There is no cap on lifetime benefits, so why a cap on earnings?
What a goofy argument from Rounds and Howie. Look at the attached chart. Obviously the only way SS has EVER worked is to raise the cap. Anyone opposing that, is fundamentally opposed to SS. Period. They should just admit it, cut the BS and let the voters decide what to do with them. Earth to Mike and Gordo, it won't be pretty.
http://www.wsu.edu/payroll/taxes/hist-oasi.htm
"Weiland and Pressler both make the reasonable and progressive point that the burden of supporting Social Security ought to be borne proportionately by all income earners, not shouldered disproportionately by the lower and middle class."
Those who make $117k and higher pay more than those who make less than $117K. Now compare that to what one gets when they reaches the age of retirement. Weiland and Pressler plan will make that current disproportionate retirement plan even more unfair. And "progressive point" is based on a Neo-Marxist worldview that promotes coveting.
Do we rilly need to insult and denigrate the koch bros by expecting them to give a little more of their inherited wealth? Have we no compassion for the filthy rich?
Point of contention - asking everyone to pay the same rate is not progressive. Let's not confuse the issue.
I'm so pleased, Cory, the words "supporting Social Security ought to be borne proportionately by all income earners, not shouldered disproportionately by the lower and middle class." have left your fingertips. In fact, let's just agree all societal burdens out to be borne proportionately by all income earners - it is, after all, fair.
Sibby, are you opposed to the whole idea of having a Social Security system? Do you oppose the concept of insurance in general, or just Social Security and Medicare insurance? Just curious.
Craig, thanks for the note! I have tied the "not" back onto that sentence, as you suspected was meant to be! Sorry about that!
Wayne, asking everyone to pay 6.2% instead of having folks making under $117K pay 6.2% while folks making more than that pay progressively less represents a movement toward a more progressive tax.
Sibby, you shibboleth-shouting charlatan! I step away from the real numbers Weiland proposes and maintain that a 20% tax on a million-dollar income imposes less loss of utility and liberty on the über-capitalist than a 6.2% on a $40K income earned by a carpenter.
Cory, perhaps you Neo-Marxist types should think twice about pitting one class against another. Even your fellow Occupy Wall Street folks are seeing the truth about Social Security and the British (check out the link that appears below this statement:
The British royalty think that the Declaration of Independence is a null and void document, but they discreetly have and continue to manipulate "human ownership" laws. The elite sure do a lot of damage while we are busy bickering between the left/right, rep/dem bullshit deception bullshit.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/queen-elizabeth-controls-and-has-amended-us-social/
I disagree, Cory.
By definition, a progressive tax is a mechanism by which those who make more pay a higher rate. As Pressler & Weiland proposed, everyone would pay the same rate. That's not a progressive tax.
Nationalize the oil and medical industries; Statehood for the tribes and Mexico.
Sibby, the Salvation Army called for you.
Math fight! Math fight! Wayne, if it's 20 below outside, and then the temperature climbs to zero, it's still darn cold, but it's warmer. Charging everyone 6.2% on every dollar isn't progressive, but it's more progressive that what Rounds and Howie want (well, wait: Howie probably wants 0% on everyone, which by my argument would be more progressive than Rounds but, by my analogy above, would be like raising the temperature twenty degrees but then dropping an asteroid on the planet).
Definition fight, really.
Progressive: "happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step" (Google definition)
Opening up SSI tax on those making more than $117k per annum is not a progressive act; it is a dramatic change, not incremental.
Progressive Tax: "A progressive tax takes a larger percentage of income from high-income groups than from low-income groups and is based on the concept of ability to pay." (IRS.gov)
SSI taxes are a fixed rate. By definition they cannot be progressive.
Saying someone advocating all should contribute at an equal rate is not more progressive than the status quo because the SSI tax does not consider ability to pay.
Using temperature is a poor analog; it's a fallacy to think of regressive and progressive tax structures as being on the same curve. We can make a tax less regressive without necessarily making it more progressive at the same time. If, for instance we took the sales tax and gave everyone a base rebate - say the first $500 of sales taxes spent - we would reduce the regressivity of the sales tax, but would not be increasing the sales tax rate on wealthier people.
Garfunkel and Oates nail Sibby's point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7dfPL7Kho
All South Dakotans should run to the polls and vote Rick Weiland every time Mike Rounds utters the word "privatize".
We are all aware of how his last privatize worked out the last time he did it. South Dakotans lost $140 million in revenue and Mike Rounds was able to finance his senate campaign.
Privatization is a way for the rich to get their grubby hands on more of our money. If we think scammers take advantage of the vulnerable now, privatization would simply be legalized scamming. Geez. The very last thing we need.
Self employed folks (most of whom are not rich) pay 12.4 percent into SS since they also pay their employers half. Anyone receiving a check from the SD state retirement system, keep in mind that money is "gambled" in the stock market as are most people's personal savings. Were the stock market to become a loosing proposition in the long run, then don't expect the the Treasuries Social Security is invested in or the payroll taxes which fund it to pay much either.
.0765 times 2 is 15.30%, Aaron.
Healthcare is another arrow in Weiland's quiver. He would like to expand Medicare to bring our country up to the standards of the rest of the western world. We are now looking to the UK as the gold standard of treating Ebola. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/15/1336881/-Are-UK-Ebola-Protocols-the-Current-Gold-Standard
The Brits have universal healthcare which seems to be working very well there as it has since its beginning. Those same contributions you make aaron would go to cover your healthcare as well as disability coverage you may need if you got hurt or sick. Instead of going to insurance companies and the bureaucracy that wolf up the monies, your contribution would actually be used for healthcare along with piece of mind, imagine that. Saving money by providing needed services that serve and protect, have and have always been democratic ideas that are proven to work.
Believe me, Les, I know, you are correct. I was just counting the SS portion.
That sounds like a wonderful ideal, Jerry. I hope it works out that way.
Don't know how I missed this thread but some things to ponder.
Cory, SS is a flat rate tax just like sales tax. Everyone pays the same rate. However, since a sales tax is voluntary (dependent on how often one uses it) it tends to effect the poor more than the rich and becomes regressive. SS, not so much. In fact ....
If you wish to argue the progressiveness of the SS tax then you need to consider that the low income earner will ultimately receive a greater percentage payback than their pay-in than the rich do. Hence the SS tax actually acts as a progressive tax but in favor of the lesser income earner.
Caps can be easily sidestepped by moving as much income as possible into unearned income such as rent, interest and dividends which are not subject to SS taxes. Capital gains are also not subject to SS taxes. Warren Buffet only makes a $100K @ year in earned income. Does he care if the caps are removed? Probably not. The soak the rich argument gets caught in the swirl of the flush.
If a $100B would be raised by eliminating the cap then business would be shouldering $50B of that tax which i sa tax increase on business, not something you really want to do in a weak economy slowing down growth which in turn slows down SS revenue collections due increased unemployment.
Wrong, everyone pays the same rate to a certain point. Then the rich make out very well. http://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm
Where do you get off on a weak economy coyote? The economy is gaining all the time 5.9% unemployment, deficit has been reduced. Markets are strong. How the hell is that weak?
The economy seems weak where I read, Mr. Jerry. Weak indeed. I blame Obama and Weiland.
For more growth in the economy, raise the minimum wage. That would raise the rest of the wages as well and stimulate the buying power need to generate the need for middle class buying incentives. Why would someone want to make a purchase with wages stagnant because of tight purse strings strangling the economy. The Chinese have that figured out already. They have just loosened funding to help banks work more to lower their debt loads to stimulate buying. Go to a bank here and try to get a loan, they will loan you all the money you do not need with a sizable interest rate. Turn around and deposit funds in the same bank and you get mattress interest for it. The way to generate social security monies is to stimulate the economy with higher wages, real simple.
I would argue this mr. grudznick, if the economy is so weak, how are you able to afford taters and gravy? Those little jewels are like cut diamonds almost.
I am sending you this link mr. grudznick to kind of let you know where you are coming with your irrational fears of such things as the economy or war or politics. How we are manipulated like being on the chiropractic table in a humbling position, not that has ever happened to me of course. Anyway, here you go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rIO5fKyXmg&list=UUh_HwmAnbMJZ9JbOOJgIA0A#t=15
5.9%, Jer? Keep on believing. As they say, faith the size of a grain of sand......or was it a mustard seed.?
Oh Grudz.
"I blame Obama and Weiland."
Of course you do. You are soooo ornery. Stirring the pot. Stirring the pot.
Yep, those are the facts Les. Of course, I will also contend that America is falling behind by being so manipulated by fear. We even fear Ebola to the extent, we think that you can catch that like a cold. To show you how dumb that is, we do not even bother getting a flu shot that kills as much of us each year as does all accidental deaths. Thankfully, those pesky Chinese are not afraid and neither are the Europeans. Only the likes of Rick Perry and the rest of the republican fear mongers make the news. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/17/1337414/-China-just-sent-10-000-doses-of-Ebola-blocking-drug-to-Africa
Why is the economy still weak? Let's count the ways:
1) The housing sector blows and is still way under performering relative to historical standards. Construction is still off as are home sales ... unless you live in Williston ND or Sioux Falls.
2) Durable goods still underperforming.
3) Business equipment investment still in need of oxygen.
4) State and local government spending sucks about as bad as housing (not necessarily a bad thing in my eyes, but since it is counted in the GDP ... still a factor as is....)
5) Federal spending is down mainly due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down.
6) Global economy is still weak and uneven or so says the IMF's chief economist Olivier Blanchard. What does he know? Just another pencil neck, /sarcasm alert on.
7) The U-3 unemployment figures are always rosy. U-6 rates are 12%
8) Deficit is coming down because of the near zero interest rates means less debt servicing interest payments and the Federal government is spending less due to the budget sequester and the Afghan and Iraq wars winding down.
9) The stock market only remains bullish because of the QE bond buying by the Fed. When the bond buying ends, the market will go bearish.
Speaking of TX Gov Rick Perry, didn't he stiff-arm Obamacare for his millions of uncovered residents by refusing to expand medicaid?
So the emergency room is his preferred alternative for these uncovered millions?
And his Texas emergency room sent the 1st victim in the USA home with a 103 degree temp. because he had no health coverage, knowing he arrived from Liberia, and that victim died a few days later.
Gee, Rick, that is one person who has died under your watch.
It is anticipated 30-70 will die in SD while Daugaard dodders.
coyote-oliver said the recovery is weak, not the economy. should i keep reading the article?
1.http://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf
2.
3.
4.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/upshot/what-janet-yellen-said-and-didnt-say-about-inequality.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1 She has the same points as I and many others on raising the wages so consumers can have the purchase power to make those a reality.
5. Vote Robinson to correct
6. Austerity still rings the bell in Europe
7. U should count the reservations
8. Vote Weiland and Robinson along with Wismer
9. Opinions. Bond market still remains strong and will be that way for some time to come. Hint: number 6, also, China has just announced they are putting a stimulus package injection into their economy to take away some of the drag of the banking issues there.
All in all, President Obama has done a hell of a job in directing this economy since the USS Bush ran it aground.
Oliver is just a pencil neck, but ya, go ahead and read the rest of the article. He does note a weak recovery, but a recovery indeed. The latest reports coming out of Spain on their recovery is a little better than first thought as well. All of this tends to allow a good market for US Treasury Bonds for protection.
Whew!! I can finally rest easy, Jer.
oh, coyote-oliver also said develop infrastructure!! Google GOP Infrastructure Obstruction. Oliver is NOT pleased.
Er, not to be forgotten is Italy. Oliver was not specific on this as he was being as neutral as possible. But here we see Italy doing much better than expected for a number of reasons. http://www.thelocal.it/20141015/sex-and-drugs-lift-italy-out-of-recession