For me, the value of these polls is open to question. To ask if you want to continue to receive a check, with no other impact, you will always get a response of “yes”. If, howeever, the question is asked, do you want to get your SS check and your kids will not, or do you want to receive annual increases and your kids will have to work longer to get theirs, it will impact the results. So long as the question asked relates only to benefits and not to costs or other impacts, the answers are unreliable. And to the extent that we as progressives use these kinds of polls to support public policy, we run the risk of things blowing up in our face.

That was, I believe, the problem in Wisconsin. We looked at only the benefit to the public employees and their union without looking at the real costs to the local homeowners and their plight.

If, howeever, the question is asked, do you want to get your SS check and your kids will not, or do you want to receive annual increases and your kids will have to work longer to get theirs, it will impact the results.

Of course it will – because it’s the wrong question. The problem is simply that high-salaried people have their FICA liability capped. The question should be, do you think people earning well over $100K a year should keep paying FICA, the results would put an end to the discussion.

Why are we always able to borrow trillions for absurd wars, but can’t borrow to ‘save’ SS? The debt debate is a red herring, you can cut SS to zero but we will never stop waging extremely expensive wars.

It’s all so rich people never have to pay taxes and fulfill their part of the social contract.

Ayn Rand says so!

(By the way: Did you know that while property and salaries are taxed, stocks and bonds — where the vast majority of the rich have the vast majority of their wealth — are not? A 10% tax on all stock and bond holdings worth $200,000 or more would end all deficits, forever — and give us more than enough money to, say, provide free public telecommunications and true high-speed internet service to every place in America.)

“A 10% tax on all stock and bond holdings worth $200,000 or more would end all deficits, forever”

No it wouldn’t because nobody’s going to hold a financial asset that’s taxed on it’s principal rather than its income.

tsk tsk

Are you suggesting that we *stop* socialism, PW? And by that I mean, socialism for the extremely wealthy?????

Because we certainly don’t have socialism for anyone else in this benighted WAR Inc land of ours.

The very idea! Taxing the 1% where it really matters!!! Whatever ARE you suggesting? That the wealthy pay their “fair share”?? Why, the very idea!

We really do not need to do that. Our governemt is sovereign in our currency and can literally buy anything for sale in dollars forever, subject to the availability of,real resources.

It’s all so rich people never have to pay taxes and fulfill their part of the social contract.

Yep. IMO, it’s the NUMBER ONE motivator behind things that get debated and passed or not passed.

Whether it be health care, education, public safety, or social security, that bottom line that you said so well is always what’s driving their policies.

I think most people would consider a reduction in the monthly check for current beneficiaries a “cut.” But I’m not convinced that a 30 yr old would consider his/her retirement age being moved from 65 to 68 to be a “cut.”

I’ve been saying for years that there is no reason Social Security needs to be cut in order to screw us.
All they need do is control the cost of living increases.
Eventually, because of inevitable inflation, your benefit VALUE will be dramatically reduced.
In the year 2024, when a Big Mac costs 12 bucks, it will all become clear.

A 30 year old might not care that much about moving the retirement age from 65 to 68, but a 50- or 55 year old person very likely will. For that matter, lowering the retirement age from, say, 65 to 62 would encourage older workers to retire, opening up jobs for younger, currently unemployed workers.

It is a cut like it or not. There is no need to do anything like that today, in fact no need to do anything, anything at all. We may never need to,do anything but that will depend on our productivity in the future. That in turn depends on our unemployment situation and investment in research and development. What else is new?

But it is a cut. You don’t receive those 3 years of benefits, and at 68 average life expectancy is about 2 years less than at 65(2006 figures), less for people at the lower end of the economic scale where the need for SS benefits is the greatest. So it’s just work (and contribute) till you die, and don’t collect what you paid for your whole life.

Add to that, unemployment issues for people over 50 these days, and the diminishing availability of employment based pensions – we should be talking about finding ways of lowering the retirement age and increasing benefits, not the other way around.

We already tax houses based on their principal value. That’s called “property tax”, and it hits the middle and working classes the hardest because houses are where they hold most of their wealth, such as it is.

Good point.

And not just that they don’t pay taxes, but that taxes the rest of us pay go to them, not to our common good, as in “privatized” social security.

So you think somebody is going to hold, say, a US Treasury portfolio worth over your $200,000 limit knowing that the amount over the limit will be subject to a 10% tax on its principle (= a 10% negative interest rate). Get back to me when that works.

Prolly the only way you can tax capital assets other than real property is with the estate tax. And these days much of that is also exempt, if I recall right.

I agree. I’m confident that polls would show generational differences for views on SS.

My point is simply that “cut” and “benefit” need to be defined in any poll. When I was 18 yrs old, I was still “immortal” and “knew” that SS was only for “old” people.

My *guess* is that many people who do not currently receive a monthly benefit check only speak of benefit cuts in terms of people who currently receive a monthly benefit check.

If voting and voters made a difference, we might be living in a democratic republic where the health and well being of the citizenry took precedence over the fortunes of the few.

No 30-year old in America has a retirement age of 65 any longer, for full Social Security benefits anyway.

I know. I think it was increased to 66 / 67 for “full” benefits, with qualifying ages varying depending on the month one was born. But my point is qualitative, not quantitative, in nature. Btw, I’m 39.

What do believe income real estate is other than a financial asset?

It’s held and taxed. (Property Tax). On its principal (value).

From what cavity in your body do you pull such statements?

Book Salon up with Van Jone’s Rebuild the Dream hosted by Southern Dragon

If you think that your property taxes will go down by reductions in Public Employees, you are dead wrong. Your taxes will never go down because Public Officials who are the real problem will never let them go down.

Have you noticed that our elected officials never question if we have enough money to support a war or that Star Wars Project that they are proposing on the east coast that will cost “trillions”???

Is “entitlements” even the word we should be applying to Social Security and medicare? I thought “entitlements” was the preferred term employed by the right because its negative connotation of something for nothing instantly skews the public conversation in their direction.

When I am asked the question on if I want my kids to not receive SS if my benefits are not cut this has been my answer: “no I want to receive my cut and I want my kids to receive their’s because this is all bullshit and I know it and you know it and I will vote and work against any representative of mine who supports a reduction in SS for me or my kids.”

So you think somebody is going to hold, say, a US Treasury portfolio worth over your $200,000 limit knowing that the amount over the limit will be subject to a 10% tax on its principle (= a 10% negative interest rate). Get back to me when that works.

There’s are reasons for high taxes on the rich “work” other than just generating revenue for the government.

A big one is that it discourages them from holding/grabbing/stealing/taking so much. When we had a 90 % marginal tax rate on income, it discouraged rich people from rewarding themselves out of the “kitty” (because that’s in essence what they are usually in a position to do). Likewise, higher taxes on corporate profits encourage corporations to *spend* the money (in terms of raises to employees, benefits, updating capital and infrastructure, etc.) rather than sending it to the Wall Street casino.

If you look at America before Reagan, both things are exactly what happened. Companies even ran “pure” research facilities (Kodak, Bell Labs, etc) just because they had to do *something* with all that cash. By stark contrast. in Reagan’s low-tax-on “job creators” America, a lot of companies are being run as “cash cows”, with little or nothing re-invested, to maximize the profit going to the Wall Street casino. The result of the 90 % tax rate was an America which sent men to the moon; the result of Reaganomics is an America that struggles to make a competitive toaster.

Maybe the idea is that a progressive tax on total wealth discourages people from accumulating more, and forces them to share more and spend/re-invest more in things that matter, back into the “real economy” rather than the paper one?

-stewartm

Is “entitlements” even the word we should be applying to Social Security and medicare?

Since we paid for it, sure. People are “entitled” to it, it’s breaking a contract.

(I also like it because ten taking it away becomes “stealing”, another apt word).

-steawrtm

Voters simply don’t want Social Security or Medicare cut.

They also didn’t want the banksters bailed out, and flooded the lines to Congress. You see how that turned out.

-stewartm

Unfortunately the voters don’t really have a choice. Continue on the current path and end up like Greece or actually begin to take some responsibility for your actions and end these medieval entitlement programs. its 2012 for Christ’s sake.

If you look at America before Reagan, both things are exactly what happened. Companies even ran “pure” research facilities (Kodak, Bell Labs, etc) just because they had to do *something* with all that cash. By stark contrast. in Reagan’s low-tax-on “job creators” America, a lot of companies are being run as “cash cows”, with little or nothing re-invested, to maximize the profit going to the Wall Street casino. The result of the 90 % tax rate was an America which sent men to the moon; the result of Reaganomics is an America that struggles to make a competitive toaster

This is a profound recognition of our situation!

They also didn’t want the banksters bailed out, and flooded the lines to Congress. You see how that turned out

1) They absolutely would have hated no bailout. The crash would’ve been stunning.

2) The ‘bailout’ was an emergency loan and at least 75% has been paid back so far.

The full retirement age for any person born after 1960 is already 67, not 65.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirement/1960.html

“…serious on the deficit by cutting spending on popular government programs is a complete myth”

Right. So who should Progressives really blame (for myth building)?
Politicians? They act totally as expected. Only idiots believes them.
The media? Aha! They act totally as most do NOT expect.

But what about Simpson-Bowles and the Barbell Approach, wherein we pass tax increases and entitlement cuts at the same time, just as one lifts both ends of a barbell at the same time. At least, that’s how Peter Orszag explains it at Bloomberg.com.

You remember Peter, Robert Rubin’s protoge and cofounder at the Hamilton Project, whom Obama appointed as his budget director at the same time he was appointing everyone else from the Hamilton Project to key White House positions.

I love how twice as many Republicans rate the deficit as a high priority now as opposed to 5 years ago.

…begin to take some responsibility for your actions and end these medieval entitlement programs

You mean those “entitlement” programs that we have been paying into at roughly twice the necessary amount needed for normal to sustain them (since 1983) in order to build up a surplus to cover the bulge of retirements for the Boomer generation?

Ya damn skippy I’m entitled to it because I have been paying for it all of my adult working life.

One thing to remember about Social Security is that you are covered and receiving a benefit that you can’t buy privately after only 20 quarters of significant work – the long term disability and survivor benefits are providing benefits to your children and spouse for most of the time workers have children. If you begin working part-time at age 18, by 24, you are probably covered by SS so that if you die, or become permanently disabled, your children and their parent get SS benefits until your children reach about 18.

Half of all the people getting SS payments are not workers, but dependents of workers; a third of the dollars of payments go to dependents who are not retired workers – dependent children and spouses.

This is always omitted when discussing SS because it promotes the idea you can replace SS with an IRA that gets the 14% of income going to FICA, as if paying 14% of $10 an hour for the 10 years before you break your neck driving your bike will result in a pool of money that will pay your living costs for the next 35 years until you turn 70, and pay for the costs of your two kids and their mother until they can support themselves and she can go to work to support herself.

The amount of savings you need at age 25 when you have a wife and kids is higher than you need at age 60 in case you can’t work to support your family, but Social Security provides the safety net that has the highest value when you are younger.

On Medicare, the issue is whether benefits should be cut – no sane person can believe Medicare costs should not be cut.

US governments, Federal and States, pay more for health care per capita US population than Canada does, but cover only about half the US population – the other half of the US population then pay and equal amount out of their pockets or paycheck to cover their own health care needs.

And by paying twice as much per person for health care in the US than they pay in Canada, we get the benefit of not having to wait to die – in the US, death beds are provided without the two year wait in Canada. Just think, in Canada, when you get old, they tell you to go on a two year round the world cruise because they are backed up on death beds and you just must live longer. I wonder how many Canadians are rushing to the US to pay $100,000 to die two years sooner….