The increased taxes could be phased in over many years. With real wages predicted to increase more than 1% per year, a 0.1% increase per year in taxes (and half of that from the employer) would hardly be noticed.
Of course, the 1% real wage growth might not happen, because of cuts to gov't spending (which will put people out of work and keep the economy depressed) and other gov't policies that keep most of the wealth flowing to those at the top. That is our biggest economic problem.
Another (not unrelated) big problem is that we spend twice as much as other wealthy countries for health care. If we could lower these costs to be comparable to theirs, we'd be looking at long-term federal gov't surpluses.
For many, everything is a crisis, until they are asked pay for it. Of course, it is OK if you can force others to pay for it. Do not look at the behaviors and policies that created the problems that must now be resolved. Better to continue those behaviors and policies, and just take more money from the productive. Yes, that's the ticket!
According to the SSA website, cash shortfalls which began in 2010 are:
2010- $49B
2011- $45B
2012- $55B
2013-2018- $75B average per year and rising sharply thereafter.
Of course this is non-interest income.
This is what the feds will have to continue to deal with, and IMO, is all they care about. One possibility is that they try to cut the program through Chained CPI, but this may not alleviate the shortfalls quickly enough. That could result in more drastic cuts.
This is what happens when the public allowed politicians to get away with spending FICA surpluses over the years, instead of demanding they be used for their intended purpose.
Thanks for posting. Non-interest income is important , for it represents cash. Interest income is merely an accounting mechanism, in which additional debt is issued to "create" the interest. From a budget perspective, we are running cash deficits in Social Security. From the trusty fund perspective we are running surpluses. Which perspective is more relevant: one in which Medicare Part D is a budget buster? Or the perspective (trust fund) in which Part D is fully funded? Don Levit
Had to post this: "Obama blasts the Sequester" while talking to the FBI. From "The Hill".
The president is an incredible fraud and sellout.
****HE THREATENED TO VETO ANY ATTEMPT BY EITHER PARTY TO REPEAL THE SEQUESTER****
HE WANTED THE SEQUESTER AND ITS DAMAGING ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS. NOW HE'S BLASTING IT???
Obama is using the sequester to FORCE HIS OWN PARTY INTO CUTTING "ENTITLEMENTS". ARE YOU GETTING THIS? ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED??
During the past few days, both Reid and Ryan have said in advance of the conference committee, that neither will seek a "grand bargain".
Do you smell a rat(s) here? I do. The deal was no entitlement cuts without revenue. So in saying no grand bargain will happen in advance, these frauds are going to try to get the sequester cuts ended by trading them for CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY. With NO NEW REVENUE!!
As an example, Head Start was one of thousands of programs cut under sequester. As important as it is, is it reasonable to impoverish seniors and disabled to re-fund this program?
Folks, the guy occupying the White House is the worst kind of bad news for Social Security imaginable.
LIAR IN CHIEF is a sellout fraud and a disgrace to the Democratic party.
6 comments:
The increased taxes could be phased in over many years. With real wages predicted to increase more than 1% per year, a 0.1% increase per year in taxes (and half of that from the employer) would hardly be noticed.
Of course, the 1% real wage growth might not happen, because of cuts to gov't spending (which will put people out of work and keep the economy depressed) and other gov't policies that keep most of the wealth flowing to those at the top. That is our biggest economic problem.
Another (not unrelated) big problem is that we spend twice as much as other wealthy countries for health care. If we could lower these costs to be comparable to theirs, we'd be looking at long-term federal gov't surpluses.
For many, everything is a crisis, until they are asked pay for it. Of course, it is OK if you can force others to pay for it. Do not look at the behaviors and policies that created the problems that must now be resolved. Better to continue those behaviors and policies, and just take more money from the productive. Yes, that's the ticket!
According to the SSA website, cash shortfalls which began in 2010 are:
2010- $49B
2011- $45B
2012- $55B
2013-2018- $75B average per year and rising sharply thereafter.
Of course this is non-interest income.
This is what the feds will have to continue to deal with, and IMO, is all they care about. One possibility is that they try to cut the program through Chained CPI, but this may not alleviate the shortfalls quickly enough. That could result in more drastic cuts.
This is what happens when the public allowed politicians to get away with spending FICA surpluses over the years, instead of demanding they be used for their intended purpose.
In reviewing what I wrote, when I said "of course this is non interest income" , I meant to say "not counting interest".
Thanks for posting.
Non-interest income is important , for it represents cash. Interest income is merely an accounting mechanism, in which additional debt is issued to "create" the interest.
From a budget perspective, we are running cash deficits in Social Security. From the trusty fund perspective we are running surpluses.
Which perspective is more relevant: one in which Medicare Part D is a budget buster? Or the perspective (trust fund) in which Part D is fully funded?
Don Levit
Had to post this: "Obama blasts the Sequester" while talking to the FBI.
From "The Hill".
The president is an incredible fraud and sellout.
****HE THREATENED TO VETO ANY ATTEMPT BY EITHER PARTY TO REPEAL THE SEQUESTER****
HE WANTED THE SEQUESTER AND ITS DAMAGING ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS. NOW HE'S BLASTING IT???
Obama is using the sequester to FORCE HIS OWN PARTY INTO CUTTING "ENTITLEMENTS". ARE YOU GETTING THIS? ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED??
During the past few days, both Reid and Ryan have said in advance of the conference committee, that neither will seek a "grand bargain".
Do you smell a rat(s) here? I do. The deal was no entitlement cuts without revenue. So in saying no grand bargain will happen in advance, these frauds are going to try to get the sequester cuts ended by trading them for CUTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY. With NO NEW REVENUE!!
As an example, Head Start was one of thousands of programs cut under sequester. As important as it is, is it reasonable to impoverish seniors and disabled to re-fund this program?
Folks, the guy occupying the White House is the worst kind of bad news for Social Security imaginable.
LIAR IN CHIEF is a sellout fraud and a disgrace to the Democratic party.
Post a Comment