3 ms·
The part you're not taking into consideration is that all of this will be paid for with cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people not already receiving be
by curun1r 9y ago
The part you're not taking into consideration is that all of this will be paid for with cuts to Social Security and Medicare for people not already receiving benefits. So if you're still in your wage-earning years, that $4k tax cut (which others have rightly pointed out only lasts 10 years) will cost you tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars a year in retirement.
It's extremely short-sighted to look at just the near-term effects of this tax bill. But such is America where so few have adequate retirement planning. We're headed for another period similar to the one that led to the establishment of Social Security. The question is how people will react this time when they see so many retirees dying in poverty.
- talmand 9y agoI'm curious why I've never heard a politician go with the argument that a tax cut today will ruin your social security benefits tomorrow. Why do they not make the argument that a tax increase would be more beneficial for your future?
- bllguo 9y agoMaybe because people are terrible at evaluating long-term vs. short-term benefits. Politicians need concrete things to point at to keep getting elected. Saying that "I voted for your life to improve in X years" won't help them that much.
- danjayh 9y agoI don't trust the government to do much of anything, and that includes invest money. Their stewardship of the social security trust fund has proven that I'm right (it's essentially full of IOU's). Anybody who believes that giving the government a few thousand dollars is better for their retirement than putting the same cash in a 401k hasn't taken a hard look at the government's performance to date. TL;DL: I don't think that argument would fly with informed voters.
- danjayh 9y agoI already plan not to receive Social Security or Medicare. If I do, I will have far more money in my retirement years than in my working years - we save at a pretty crippling rate of ~20% into Roths right now. But since I'm 35 and my wife is 30, it's likely that we'll get nothing (or very little).