U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Sunseeker]

I meant well off in terms of health, not money. Regular work keeps the mind sharp.

Which has nothing to do with retiring. There are plenty of ways to keep active without working a job. Go to college, read books on your own time, hell even participating in online discussions! You could go jogging, join a club, take up a hobby. Unless you are improving your station though your employment, working the same old 9-5 will do more to wear you down than lift you up.

[Wells]

Of course it's a problem. It's not, however, society's fault they didn't choose to save anything to retire. They get their Social Security. They have the same self-directing retirement options available to themselves as anyone else. That's assuming their employer doesn't offer a SEP IRA or 401(k)/(b). In fact, in my experience, most employers will automatically opt you into the 401(k) if you don't sign a document opting out. Many of the more ignorant people WILL opt out. They make a conscious decision to not save for retirement.

I don't care who's fault it is. That's a shitty way to go about setting policy. You can't just say "whelp this problem isn't out fault so fuck it". People who can't retire are a problem. Senior poverty is a problem.

Not particularly. I don't subscribe to that "American Dream" crap.

its not an issue of "the american dream". Its a legitimate economic issue.

Actually I've read several articles stating that staying active and productive in your older years is one of the keys to a long life. Once people become sedentary and just start watching TVs their bodies kind of disintegrate.

That being said, being a greeter at wal mart might not be the best way to go about it. When we talk about people who can't retire its not the lawyer who works into his 70s or the teacher who chooses to work until he dies because his brain stays sharp.

[Sunseeker]

But the benefits on mental health still exist. There is a reason people with steady jobs don't develop Alzheimer's as much or as quickly.

Um...what? Alzheimers is genetic. People get it when their bodies get it. Older people get it because they're more prone to everything. Regular exercise can ward of it's effects to some degree, but it doesn't prevent you from getting it.

[Elegiac]

Which has nothing to do with retiring. There are plenty of ways to keep active without working a job. Go to college, read books on your own time, hell even participating in online discussions! You could go jogging, join a club, take up a hobby. Unless you are improving your station though your employment, working the same old 9-5 will do more to wear you down than lift you up.

Yes, but we're not talking about how to stay sharp in you're old age. We're discussing the benefits of not retiring.

Back to the point at hand, making social security self funded is a critical issue, especially given that the American demographic is getting older.

[Wells]

SS is self funded. It has its own trust and does not contribute to the general deficit.

[Elegiac]

SS is self funded. It has its own trust and does not contribute to the general deficit.

SS is not self funded because it relies on income and capital gains tax for its trust revenue. Since an increasing proportion of the population is living at retirement age, eventually it will reach a critical mass where the amount being paid out exceeds the amount being paid in.

The "self funded" I mean is that individuals fund their own retirement.

[Wells]

So let me get this straight. A program isn't self funded if it has revenue sources. Well that makes sense.

Since an increasing proportion of the population is living at retirement age, eventually it will reach a critical mass where the amount being paid out exceeds the amount being paid in.

This really isn't the hurdle everyone pretends it is. The numbers are blown way out of proportion.

The "self funded" I mean is that individuals fund their own retirement.

We have a ton of ways to fund your own retirement, we have forever. They're weren't enough. Senior poverty was a massive problem before we started taking measures.

[Laize]

I believe that during the Clinton era state subsidies were cut by a significant degree, and the federal government was running a surplus until Bush II.

The Federal government wasn't actually running a surplus. It made it look that way through using intra-governmental borrowings rather than public debt. Just so you're aware.

[Deleted]

And the Laffer Curve, of course, refers to government revenue, but with higher tax rates, what else would cause lower revenue than a chilling economy? The right side represents the wealthy who simply refuse to work (and must therefore furlough employees in their absence.) after a certain point in the year.

Every step to the right will give you marginally less revenue per increase, and will chill the economy. The tipping point simply means that the diminishing returns on increasing taxes become so great that you actually start to lose revenue than gain it.

[Elegiac]

So let me get this straight. A program isn't self funded if it has revenue sources. Well that makes sense.

This really isn't the hurdle everyone pretends it is. The numbers are blown way out of proportion.

We have a ton of ways to fund your own retirement, we have forever. They're weren't enough. Senior poverty was a massive problem before we started taking measures.

Out of proportion? It's a commonly accepted fact that the US' society is growing older. Combined with repeated tax cuts for the rich, this means reduced revenue for social security.

You clearly weren't reading my posts about superannuation.

[Sunseeker]

Yes, but we're not talking about how to stay sharp in you're old age.

Which is all you've been talking about.

We're discussing the benefits of not retiring.

But you haven't mentioned any. You've only mentioned the benefits of continued activities into your old age. And as I have repeatedly endeavored to point out, continuing to make money means nothing if you don't actually improve your station in life. Costs increase as you age, even if you stay as healthy as possible, so continuing to make the same amounts at 80 as you did at 20 will result in a loss of quality of life, a decrease in wealth and absolutely nothing other than loss.

[Laize]

I don't care who's fault it is. That's a shitty way to go about setting policy. You can't just say "whelp this problem isn't out fault so fuck it". People who can't retire are a problem. Senior poverty is a problem.

And what do you propose to do about it? Make IRAs and 401(k)s more tax free? Maybe establish some sort of government retirement program? Some socialized form of financial security? I know, we could call it Social Security.

There are so many options for retirement that I can't even list them all off the top of my head. Information for it is fucking everywhere.

There are some people who just don't fucking care enough to plan ahead.

[Deleted]

We have a ton of ways to fund your own retirement, we have forever. They're weren't enough. Senior poverty was a massive problem before we started taking measures.

Historically though, SS certainly didn't solve these problems.The poor and the rich both pay their entire working lives into SS, the funny thing is that the poor have lower lifespans which means they get to enjoy fewer years of it. SS really is an incredible program.

[Elegiac]

The Federal government wasn't actually running a surplus. It made it look that way through using intra-governmental borrowings rather than public debt. Just so you're aware.

Is that according to Fox News Finance?

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 03:55 PM ----------

Which is all you've been talking about.

But you haven't mentioned any. You've only mentioned the benefits of continued activities into your old age. And as I have repeatedly endeavored to point out, continuing to make money means nothing if you don't actually improve your station in life. Costs increase as you age, even if you stay as healthy as possible, so continuing to make the same amounts at 80 as you did at 20 will result in a loss of quality of life, a decrease in wealth and absolutely nothing other than loss.

Sorry, but does work not count as activity anymore?

[Wells]

Out of proportion? It's a commonly accepted fact that the US' society is growing older.

yes it is. But not so much as to destroy SS

Combined with repeated tax cuts for the rich, this means reduced revenue for social security.

I'm not sure how much you know about how SS is funded tbh.

And what do you propose to do about it? Make IRAs and 401(k)s more tax free? Maybe establish some sort of government retirement program? Some socialized form of financial security? I know, we could call it Social Security.

Have you been following along? I'm defending SS.

Historically though, SS certainly didn't solve these problems.

You're saying SS didn't do anything for senior poverty?

[Elegiac]

yes it is. But not so much as to destroy SS

Maybe not 'destroy' it, but certainly to make it a liability. Income and capital gains tax are better spent elsewhere.

[Laize]

Every step to the right will give you marginally less revenue per increase, and will chill the economy. The tipping point simply means that the diminishing returns on increasing taxes become so great that you actually start to lose revenue than gain it.

Alright. Here's the current situation.

We run a $1.2 trillion deficit. The options for closing the deficit include reducing spending or increasing taxes. Neither the Democrats or Republicans will allow spending reductions in their chosen government bloat so the best you'll get is MAYBE a 2% reduction in overall spending. If you're lucky. In the meantime our debt is approximately 120% of GDP right now. An interest rate hike (expected in 2014) will increase our interest spending by $1.6 billion per basis point such that a hike to a measly 2% will increase interest spending by $80 billion a year. If we hit 3% we'll be spending as much on interest as we do on Medicare or Defense.

We're also constitutionally mandated to pay that debt (Ie it would be illegal for Congress to decide to repudiate the debt).

That leaves on option. Increased taxes.

Got another idea? If it's realistic I'd love to hear it.

[Deleted]

You're saying SS didn't do anything for senior poverty?

Probably more harm than good for those who paid their whole life into it. Especially before the recent reforms when it really just became wealth redistribution.

[Elegiac]

That leaves on option. Increased taxes.

Got another idea? If it's realistic I'd love to hear it.

Nothing wrong with higher taxes. The upper tax bracket paid 90% income tax at one point.

[Wells]

Maybe not 'destroy' it, but certainly to make it a liability. Income and capital gains tax are better spent elsewhere.

Ok I'm good here.

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 11:01 PM ----------

Probably more harm than good for those who paid their whole life into it. Especially before the recent reforms when it really just became wealth redistribution.

Right ok so the problem was people not saving for retirement. So clearly a program that saves money for their retirement has done more harm than good.

You know this is one of those moments where I kind of want to write you off for not having actually ever been in the US.