4 ms·

>Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Soc

by vlan0 7y ago

>Actually we are hurting for more humans depending on what you want. For example social programs are built with very generous population growth predictions. Social security is solvent to 2035 according to our own government estimates: It doesn't seem as cut and dry as just number of people when the the tax has a cap. The flat cap placed on taxable income seems a bit insane when the wealthiest people have seen exponential growth for decades. While at the same time, we have a shrinking middle class with wages that have failed to match inflation. Essentially so much of the money in the economy is earned above the taxable level that it's not surprising we cannot sustain social programs.

Mirioron 7y ago
The cap doesn't really matter. What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy).
- vlan0 7y ago
  >What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. All of that is riding on the fact that there will be jobs for these people. As more and more jobs get pushed overseas or are automated away that doesn't seem realistic. So how can they contribute to the system? > Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy). Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    >As more and more jobs get pushed overseas You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population. Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits. >Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share. You can think of it like that, but then you have to explain the taxes. Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share. If you remove the caps then this logic doesn't work anymore and it will be yet another tax where the government breaks their promise. I personally don't care if there are caps or not since it will never affect me.
    - vlan0 7y ago
      I appreciate the civil discourse you and I are having! >You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population. Yes, it is a global issue. But, unfortunately, I am less confident we can solve for issues that affect the global population. Maybe we will learn from our climate change issue that preventative measures must be taken. Reactionary responses will be too late. >Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits. And while I agree some level of automation will help. What you describe in your last sentence is already happening in the US, and we are making no attempt to accommodate our tax structure to these changes. The bleed >Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share. Interesting, I was not aware. But wouldn't this be true for other things the government provides? Such as public roads and the like? When we have Amazon paying $0 in federal tax, but shipping products using public roads...we subsidize them. Or when the richest folk do the same by storing trillions of dollars in tax havens...we subsidize them. So maybe we should have this conversation again once we convince folks to pay their fair share. :) Cheers!

by vlan0 7y ago

Mirioron 7y ago

The cap doesn't really matter. What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy).

vlan0 7y ago
>What matters is the shape of the population pyramid that social programs require. You will need to have more younger people than older people and the population growth in the developed world simply isn't enough. All of that is riding on the fact that there will be jobs for these people. As more and more jobs get pushed overseas or are automated away that doesn't seem realistic. So how can they contribute to the system? > Removing the caps simply kicks the can down the road. European countries have the same issue and that's why many of them have been increasing the retirement age but also removing some benefits from future generations (eg Italy). Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >As more and more jobs get pushed overseas You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population. Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits. >Great, so people will have to pay their fair share and we get more time to solve for the long term. There is no downside to force the extremely wealth to pay their fair share. You can think of it like that, but then you have to explain the taxes. Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share. If you remove the caps then this logic doesn't work anymore and it will be yet another tax where the government breaks their promise. I personally don't care if there are caps or not since it will never affect me.
  - vlan0 7y ago
    I appreciate the civil discourse you and I are having! >You can't look at this as a local problem. It's a problem that's going to affect every country in the world, because eventually all of them are going to have a stagnating population. Yes, it is a global issue. But, unfortunately, I am less confident we can solve for issues that affect the global population. Maybe we will learn from our climate change issue that preventative measures must be taken. Reactionary responses will be too late. >Automation is actually the one thing that could solve this issue. If we can make things cheap enough then maybe government programs can cover it, but that's a big if in the long term. It's more likely that some generation is going to get the short end of the stick - they'll have to pay for the benefits of the older generation, but they themselves won't get those benefits. And while I agree some level of automation will help. What you describe in your last sentence is already happening in the US, and we are making no attempt to accommodate our tax structure to these changes. The bleed >Initially, payroll taxes for healthcare and pensions are there to cover the individual that's paying it. That is the fair share. Interesting, I was not aware. But wouldn't this be true for other things the government provides? Such as public roads and the like? When we have Amazon paying $0 in federal tax, but shipping products using public roads...we subsidize them. Or when the richest folk do the same by storing trillions of dollars in tax havens...we subsidize them. So maybe we should have this conversation again once we convince folks to pay their fair share. :) Cheers!