4 ms·

Dear Mary, Social Security is not an entitlement in anything but the strictest sense of the word. Every year you put it in your report and group it in like it'

Dear Mary, Social Security is not an entitlement in anything but the strictest sense of the word. Every year you put it in your report and group it in like it's some sort of handout by the federal government, but it's not. And every year, you put up a few slides pushing your politically-motivated world view of cutting "expenses", but never bother to note what USA Inc. could do to increase revenues like raising taxes on the insanely wealthy back to 1950's levels: 91 percent top marginal tax rate would go a long way to balancing USA Inc's books. Also, it's amazing how many slides you dedicated to the national debt during Obama's presidency, and yet now it barely gets a mention, and definitely no dire predictions of ruin and destruction for all. I wonder why? Every year I point this stuff out in HN, because I want to make sure the bias is well and truly noted in case others missed it. It makes me question how much irrational partiality infects the rest of the report - quite a lot I suspect.

CharlesW 7y ago
Thank you for noting that.
skybrian 7y ago
Why do you believe Social Security isn't an entitlement?
- sp332 7y ago
  There's a connotation of entitlements that they are merely demanded and not earned. But Social Security benefits are, at least through a hotly debated and ever-changing formula, related to the amount a person paid in.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    It's kind of a weird argument, considering that nothing in the Bill of Rights (for example) is earned. There are things we have "by right" according to law and that's okay.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      It's literally money taken out of your paycheck and added to the pool. You can opt out and they'll pay you the amount you're due based on what you paid in at that time, and you will not have any more withheld from your paychecks but you will not receive any more later in life either. It's literally a government run retirement account that you fund yourself (and at this point with less assurance that you'll get a good return on that). How's that an entitlement?
      - skybrian 7y ago
        Do you have a source? I'm not finding anything confirming this based on a brief search. It doesn't look like most people can opt out or get any money before turning 62.
        kbenson 7y ago
        Hmm, the info I'm sourcing now also makes it look extremely hard to do. I knew someone who said they were opting out to get a few thousand dollars cash, and said that they got it, but maybe I misunderstood or they weren't explaining it well. I think the rest of the points stand though. It's not just random tax allocations being distributed to people, Social Security has it's own fund that is paid into through it's own specific taxes.[1] The amount you get out is based on the you put in (even if it's not necessarily a simple formula). You can see this here.[2] I wouldn't consider a separately funded and administered fund specifically designed for retirement an "entitlement", as that term is generally used in politics. It is true that employers match the amount employees put in (both to a taxable maximum amount), but that's not all that different than many retirement plans where there exist 401k matching. Social security is just a codified legal requirement that people have some form of saving account if they work, and split the burden between the employee and business (all businesses, which means it doesn't disadvantage the business since it's a level playing field) 1: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecuri... 2: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/
jblow 7y ago
A 91% top marginal tax rate would be a net negative on taxes, because most of the rich people would leave the country. There's a fine art to setting the tax rate at a level that people dislike, but not strongly enough to do something about it, because the other benefits of being here outweigh.
- kbenson 7y ago
  > because most of the rich people would leave the country. Yeah, the IRS doesn't care. If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside. 1: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...
  - greenhatman 7y ago
    People and companies would systematically move overseas. People would renounce US citizenship.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      There are many, many things that make that not as easy or desirable as you make it sound. As an extreme example, the current tariffs. Renouncing citizenship means people no longer have a right to work or travel in the US without a visa. That makes continuing business harder, and keeping family connections harder. Keep in mind a 91% top marginal tax rate isn't an effective rate of 91%, it would only affect money over some theoretically large amount. If you made $10 million gross, it doesn't mean you take home $900k. Depending on how the rate tiers are set up, you're probably taking home multiple millions of dollars, and you can get a lot more bang for your buck with some good donating (since the higher the rate, the less it affects your bottom line). Also, maybe there's investment opportunities that allow for it to be put back into businesses as VC that also delay the tax, and allow for it to be put to use. So the question is, would you uproot your life and move away from friends and family and make it harder to do business so that instead of taking home $4 million of your $10 million gross you take home $6 million or $7 million? Given how little utility that extra money likely has, I'm not sure many people would (especially since the bragging rights for how much they made the prior year remain unchanged).
dang 7y ago
Please don't take HN threads on generic political tangents. Your points may be good but this is clearly a step into generic flamewar and therefore the wrong direction for HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- russellbeattie 7y ago
  This isn't a tangent. I really think it's important to note her bias as I feel it has a clear impact on how HN readers will interpret the rest of her stats and analysis. I didn't mention political parties because she has a whole section showing how important open immigration is, pointing out the huge number of jobs related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. So it's not like she's towing a party line blindly. But her macro-economic viewpoint has always been consistently screwed up. For years she's been outright duplicitous with her stats about the U.S. debt and deficit. Which makes you wonder, what other facts is she manipulating?
- mrunkel 7y ago
  I am usually 100% behind you on your attempts to moderate, but I'm not sure I follow you here. But thank you for doing what you do! In this case it doesn't seem to be a generic political tangent, but specifically addressing what appears to be bias in the report. I found the post informative and adding context, but then, I'm probably politically aligned with the GP. Which certainly colors my view. :)
  - dang 7y ago
    There may be such a bias. But the question from our point of view is which exerts the stronger gravitational pull: details of how such bias affects this analysis? or a generic political flamewar about "entitlements"? Since the latter topic has far more mass and charge, it's going to win every time. Does that make sense? The dynamics of introducing hot controversies into a discussion are predictable. If a comment is to avoid having that effect, it needs to include information specific to the topic at hand and eliminate any traces of flamebait.

CharlesW 7y ago

Thank you for noting that.

skybrian 7y ago

Why do you believe Social Security isn't an entitlement?

sp332 7y ago
There's a connotation of entitlements that they are merely demanded and not earned. But Social Security benefits are, at least through a hotly debated and ever-changing formula, related to the amount a person paid in.
- skybrian 7y ago
  It's kind of a weird argument, considering that nothing in the Bill of Rights (for example) is earned. There are things we have "by right" according to law and that's okay.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    It's literally money taken out of your paycheck and added to the pool. You can opt out and they'll pay you the amount you're due based on what you paid in at that time, and you will not have any more withheld from your paychecks but you will not receive any more later in life either. It's literally a government run retirement account that you fund yourself (and at this point with less assurance that you'll get a good return on that). How's that an entitlement?
    - skybrian 7y ago
      Do you have a source? I'm not finding anything confirming this based on a brief search. It doesn't look like most people can opt out or get any money before turning 62.
      - kbenson 7y ago
        Hmm, the info I'm sourcing now also makes it look extremely hard to do. I knew someone who said they were opting out to get a few thousand dollars cash, and said that they got it, but maybe I misunderstood or they weren't explaining it well. I think the rest of the points stand though. It's not just random tax allocations being distributed to people, Social Security has it's own fund that is paid into through it's own specific taxes.[1] The amount you get out is based on the you put in (even if it's not necessarily a simple formula). You can see this here.[2] I wouldn't consider a separately funded and administered fund specifically designed for retirement an "entitlement", as that term is generally used in politics. It is true that employers match the amount employees put in (both to a taxable maximum amount), but that's not all that different than many retirement plans where there exist 401k matching. Social security is just a codified legal requirement that people have some form of saving account if they work, and split the burden between the employee and business (all businesses, which means it doesn't disadvantage the business since it's a level playing field) 1: https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecurity.htm https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/HowAreSocialSecuri... 2: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/

jblow 7y ago

A 91% top marginal tax rate would be a net negative on taxes, because most of the rich people would leave the country. There's a fine art to setting the tax rate at a level that people dislike, but not strongly enough to do something about it, because the other benefits of being here outweigh.

kbenson 7y ago
> because most of the rich people would leave the country. Yeah, the IRS doesn't care. If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, the rules for filing income, estate, and gift tax returns and paying estimated tax are generally the same whether you are in the United States or abroad. Your worldwide income is subject to U.S. income tax, regardless of where you reside. 1: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayers-living-abroad https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxp...
- greenhatman 7y ago
  People and companies would systematically move overseas. People would renounce US citizenship.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    There are many, many things that make that not as easy or desirable as you make it sound. As an extreme example, the current tariffs. Renouncing citizenship means people no longer have a right to work or travel in the US without a visa. That makes continuing business harder, and keeping family connections harder. Keep in mind a 91% top marginal tax rate isn't an effective rate of 91%, it would only affect money over some theoretically large amount. If you made $10 million gross, it doesn't mean you take home $900k. Depending on how the rate tiers are set up, you're probably taking home multiple millions of dollars, and you can get a lot more bang for your buck with some good donating (since the higher the rate, the less it affects your bottom line). Also, maybe there's investment opportunities that allow for it to be put back into businesses as VC that also delay the tax, and allow for it to be put to use. So the question is, would you uproot your life and move away from friends and family and make it harder to do business so that instead of taking home $4 million of your $10 million gross you take home $6 million or $7 million? Given how little utility that extra money likely has, I'm not sure many people would (especially since the bragging rights for how much they made the prior year remain unchanged).

dang 7y ago

Please don't take HN threads on generic political tangents. Your points may be good but this is clearly a step into generic flamewar and therefore the wrong direction for HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

russellbeattie 7y ago
This isn't a tangent. I really think it's important to note her bias as I feel it has a clear impact on how HN readers will interpret the rest of her stats and analysis. I didn't mention political parties because she has a whole section showing how important open immigration is, pointing out the huge number of jobs related to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants. So it's not like she's towing a party line blindly. But her macro-economic viewpoint has always been consistently screwed up. For years she's been outright duplicitous with her stats about the U.S. debt and deficit. Which makes you wonder, what other facts is she manipulating?
mrunkel 7y ago
I am usually 100% behind you on your attempts to moderate, but I'm not sure I follow you here. But thank you for doing what you do! In this case it doesn't seem to be a generic political tangent, but specifically addressing what appears to be bias in the report. I found the post informative and adding context, but then, I'm probably politically aligned with the GP. Which certainly colors my view. :)
- dang 7y ago
  There may be such a bias. But the question from our point of view is which exerts the stronger gravitational pull: details of how such bias affects this analysis? or a generic political flamewar about "entitlements"? Since the latter topic has far more mass and charge, it's going to win every time. Does that make sense? The dynamics of introducing hot controversies into a discussion are predictable. If a comment is to avoid having that effect, it needs to include information specific to the topic at hand and eliminate any traces of flamebait.