10 ms·

The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan supported sending people statements of what was in their social security. His idea was that if people never saw what wa

The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan supported sending people statements of what was in their social security. His idea was that if people never saw what was in there, they'd never miss it when it was gone. I think this is a logical extension of that idea, and its great. I'd also like to see the flip side of the receipt contain a guess for how the same tax amount would break down the following year based on current budget trends. That way you could see how the coming year is different from the current year. Complaining about NASA funding is one thing -- seeing that they only get 20 bucks while Social Security gets over a thousand? Puts the situation in much sharper contrast. It's strange that the government works in such an arcane fashion. A simple thing like a receipt for your taxes is probably very hard or impossible to accomplish. It took many years for Moynihan to get his SS statements. I have doubts that this would ever fly. But it is certainly a simple and profound idea.

kscaldef 16y ago
We do get annual statements from the SSA. The benefit amounts listed on mine are not insubstantial. (Whether you believe those numbers of the long term is a different question...)
- grandalf 16y ago
  They are in future dollars, so $1000 shown on your statement is $400 in 30 years from now, assuming inflation stays around 3%.
  - kscaldef 16y ago
    Ahh, I had been curious about that, and the statements don't really say.
timr 16y ago
It's definitely a great idea, given that members of both major political parties are absolutely loathe to touch the biggest sources of government expenditure: old person benefits (social security + medicare), and the military. Medical services for the poor (medicaid) are comparatively minor, but you wouldn't know it, given how much emphasis the Republicans place on the question of the "welfare state". With greater public knowledge, perhaps we'd finally be able to move past the irrational demonization of expenses that don't matter (but win cheap political points), and focus our attention on the actual problems.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  Social security and medicare are "welfare" by any reasonable definition. So the welfare state is a big issue.
  - timr 16y ago
    You can define "welfare" however you like, but it doesn't change the reality that no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Old people comprise the base of both political parties.
    - xenophanes 16y ago
      I agree with you that the Republicans aren't going to do much of what I want. I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals.
      - timr 16y ago
        "I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals." I didn't suggest that it was. I just think that if we're going to have an intellectually honest discussion about the matter, we have to disregard most of the Republican party rhetoric: the poor are not the problem. The elderly are the problem. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is saying that out loud. The Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to their base (which is also elderly), but at least they don't hang the poor out to dry in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the real problem.
        mkramlich 16y ago
        I don't even think the elderly are the problem. I think Congress as a whole is the larger problem. And the structure of national elections, the existance/tactics of the Republican Party, as a close 2nd and 3rd.
pigbucket 16y ago
From the linked Thirdway page: > Would this be hard and expensive for the federal government to do? It shouldn't be. The mathematical formula to do this is very simple. The Social Security Administration does this every year ... This would be far easier. It could also be done online. An IRS website should be available so people could key in the amount they pay in taxes and a receipt pops up showing several dozen recognizable programs and the amount that went to each of them Your point, I take it, is about government resistances and inefficiencies, and spot on. But it wouldn't have to be the government to do this. The information is available. Thirdway, or anyone, could do it themselves and make it available to any website. A developer could do an app and sell it for a dollar. edit: that was quick: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745312 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745312
grandalf 16y ago
To be fair, the statements we get from Social security suffer from the following very serious problems, which actually have the opposite effect of the one you describe: 1) They aren't redeemable for the promised amount if congress lowers benefits, as it has many times already. We all know that benefits will be lowered significantly (or removed) by the time most of us here reach retirement age. Anyone under 40 should consider the money deducted for Social Security flushed permanently. 2) They are not in projected inflation adjusted dollars. The $1500 per month someone read on the piece of paper is actually in 2060 dollars (for example) not 2010 dollars; if shown in 2010 dollars it would be laughably small. These sorts of numerical tricks would never be tolerated if a private firm was perpetrating them.
- jbooth 16y ago
  "These sorts of numerical tricks would never be tolerated if a private firm was perpetrating them." You wrote that with a straight face?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Yes I did. There is a precise analogy between Social Security and Madoff's fund, the only difference is that Madoff's rope was a bit shorter because he doesn't have the power to force all working Americans to sign up. But, just as Madoff eventually ran out of new investors and due to a market dip was unable to continue to pay out the fake proceeds, demographic trends will make the US Government unable to pay out the proceeds promised to all the people who pay payroll tax every paycheck. Already, the government has cut social security benefits drastically. I'm not talking about harming the rich, these are working class people forced to invest 12.5% of their lifetime earnings into a scheme that has zero guarantees and a history of profligacy. Note: If you look at income + payroll tax, we don't have nearly as progressive a system as you might imagine. That would perhaps be fine if there were actually a safety net being provided.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Well, if it was a private company, let's posit it's set to go broke in 40 years, it'd be trading up for the next 39 years and 364 days. RE: Your views on SS in general, is that a populist argument for stronger SS and a more progressive income tax?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
jpwagner 16y ago
services like turbotax could distribute these sorts of receipts.
ataggart 16y ago
>His idea was that if people never saw what was in there... The problem of course is there's no "there" there. Any funds collected today by payroll taxes, and not used for today's benefits, are lent to the general fund and spent. There are no funds being saved for next year's benefits, much less the current tax payers. Now, it is true that the Social Security system then holds "assets" in exchange for that cash, namely, government bonds. But this is just accounting fiction. Imagine you are a new parent and wish to save for your child's college tuition. Here are some scenarios: A) Every pay day you put some money in a jar. When your child goes to college you take the money out of the jar to pay the tuition. B) Every pay day you spend every dime. When your child is ready to go to college, you scramble to find the funds to pay the tuition. C) Every pay day you put some money in a jar, then you replace the money in the jar with an IOU, and spend the money. When your child is ready to go to college, you scramble to find the funds to pay the IOUs to pay the tuition. There is no substantive difference between B and C.
- guelo 16y ago
  Better not tell the Chinese that U.S. treasury bonds are just an accounting fiction.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    he's talking about the government lending money to the government, not our massive borrowing. even more obscene than this fiction is how the Federal Reserve prints money, lends it to the banks, who then lend it to the Treasury and collect 3% for doing so. Its such an obvious subsidy of that whole sector, without which would look much worse.
    - guelo 16y ago
      > he's talking about the government lending money to the government, not our massive borrowing. The point is US T-bills are considered one of the safest investments in the world but when people start talking about SS for some reason they pretend that they are worthless.

kscaldef 16y ago

We do get annual statements from the SSA. The benefit amounts listed on mine are not insubstantial. (Whether you believe those numbers of the long term is a different question...)

grandalf 16y ago
They are in future dollars, so $1000 shown on your statement is $400 in 30 years from now, assuming inflation stays around 3%.
- kscaldef 16y ago
  Ahh, I had been curious about that, and the statements don't really say.

timr 16y ago

It's definitely a great idea, given that members of both major political parties are absolutely loathe to touch the biggest sources of government expenditure: old person benefits (social security + medicare), and the military. Medical services for the poor (medicaid) are comparatively minor, but you wouldn't know it, given how much emphasis the Republicans place on the question of the "welfare state". With greater public knowledge, perhaps we'd finally be able to move past the irrational demonization of expenses that don't matter (but win cheap political points), and focus our attention on the actual problems.

xenophanes 16y ago
Social security and medicare are "welfare" by any reasonable definition. So the welfare state is a big issue.
- timr 16y ago
  You can define "welfare" however you like, but it doesn't change the reality that no politician -- on either side of the aisle -- is seriously proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Old people comprise the base of both political parties.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    I agree with you that the Republicans aren't going to do much of what I want. I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals.
    - timr 16y ago
      "I don't agree that all politicians are Democrats or Republicans, or that it's pointless to speak about issues where the parties in power aren't making good proposals." I didn't suggest that it was. I just think that if we're going to have an intellectually honest discussion about the matter, we have to disregard most of the Republican party rhetoric: the poor are not the problem. The elderly are the problem. As far as I'm concerned, nobody is saying that out loud. The Democrats are just as guilty of pandering to their base (which is also elderly), but at least they don't hang the poor out to dry in a cynical attempt to distract attention from the real problem.
      - mkramlich 16y ago
        I don't even think the elderly are the problem. I think Congress as a whole is the larger problem. And the structure of national elections, the existance/tactics of the Republican Party, as a close 2nd and 3rd.

pigbucket 16y ago

From the linked Thirdway page: > Would this be hard and expensive for the federal government to do? It shouldn't be. The mathematical formula to do this is very simple. The Social Security Administration does this every year ... This would be far easier. It could also be done online. An IRS website should be available so people could key in the amount they pay in taxes and a receipt pops up showing several dozen recognizable programs and the amount that went to each of them Your point, I take it, is about government resistances and inefficiencies, and spot on. But it wouldn't have to be the government to do this. The information is available. Thirdway, or anyone, could do it themselves and make it available to any website. A developer could do an app and sell it for a dollar. edit: that was quick: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745312 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745312

grandalf 16y ago

To be fair, the statements we get from Social security suffer from the following very serious problems, which actually have the opposite effect of the one you describe: 1) They aren't redeemable for the promised amount if congress lowers benefits, as it has many times already. We all know that benefits will be lowered significantly (or removed) by the time most of us here reach retirement age. Anyone under 40 should consider the money deducted for Social Security flushed permanently. 2) They are not in projected inflation adjusted dollars. The $1500 per month someone read on the piece of paper is actually in 2060 dollars (for example) not 2010 dollars; if shown in 2010 dollars it would be laughably small. These sorts of numerical tricks would never be tolerated if a private firm was perpetrating them.

jbooth 16y ago
"These sorts of numerical tricks would never be tolerated if a private firm was perpetrating them." You wrote that with a straight face?
- grandalf 16y ago
  Yes I did. There is a precise analogy between Social Security and Madoff's fund, the only difference is that Madoff's rope was a bit shorter because he doesn't have the power to force all working Americans to sign up. But, just as Madoff eventually ran out of new investors and due to a market dip was unable to continue to pay out the fake proceeds, demographic trends will make the US Government unable to pay out the proceeds promised to all the people who pay payroll tax every paycheck. Already, the government has cut social security benefits drastically. I'm not talking about harming the rich, these are working class people forced to invest 12.5% of their lifetime earnings into a scheme that has zero guarantees and a history of profligacy. Note: If you look at income + payroll tax, we don't have nearly as progressive a system as you might imagine. That would perhaps be fine if there were actually a safety net being provided.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Well, if it was a private company, let's posit it's set to go broke in 40 years, it'd be trading up for the next 39 years and 364 days. RE: Your views on SS in general, is that a populist argument for stronger SS and a more progressive income tax?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

jpwagner 16y ago

services like turbotax could distribute these sorts of receipts.

ataggart 16y ago

>His idea was that if people never saw what was in there... The problem of course is there's no "there" there. Any funds collected today by payroll taxes, and not used for today's benefits, are lent to the general fund and spent. There are no funds being saved for next year's benefits, much less the current tax payers. Now, it is true that the Social Security system then holds "assets" in exchange for that cash, namely, government bonds. But this is just accounting fiction. Imagine you are a new parent and wish to save for your child's college tuition. Here are some scenarios: A) Every pay day you put some money in a jar. When your child goes to college you take the money out of the jar to pay the tuition. B) Every pay day you spend every dime. When your child is ready to go to college, you scramble to find the funds to pay the tuition. C) Every pay day you put some money in a jar, then you replace the money in the jar with an IOU, and spend the money. When your child is ready to go to college, you scramble to find the funds to pay the IOUs to pay the tuition. There is no substantive difference between B and C.

guelo 16y ago
Better not tell the Chinese that U.S. treasury bonds are just an accounting fiction.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  he's talking about the government lending money to the government, not our massive borrowing. even more obscene than this fiction is how the Federal Reserve prints money, lends it to the banks, who then lend it to the Treasury and collect 3% for doing so. Its such an obvious subsidy of that whole sector, without which would look much worse.
  - guelo 16y ago
    > he's talking about the government lending money to the government, not our massive borrowing. The point is US T-bills are considered one of the safest investments in the world but when people start talking about SS for some reason they pretend that they are worthless.