5 ms·

Why should that be how it works though? We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security so we don't have to gamble our savings in

Why should that be how it works though? We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security so we don't have to gamble our savings in a giant ponzi scheme. It shouldn't be on the individual to be lucky that a massive recession doesn't hit when they want to retire.. or depend on the market making a few percent a year just to survive.

Auracle 5y ago
Most 401ks are probably in funds that automatically start allocating more and more bonds as they approach retirement age. And frankly, if I could stop contributing to social security and invest it instead I would in a heartbeat. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme that relies on more and more citizens paying in. That’s unsustainable, and by the time I retire I’m sure they’re at least going to move the age to collect up.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  I've learned to relax about Social Security. I look at it as "diversification" of my retirement sources. I don't want all my eggs in the 401K basket either.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    I agree with you there, but I certainly don't want it expanded and taking more of my income. When you're self employed it really hurts.
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  Calling social security a ponzi scheme while thinking your 401k isn't a ponzi scheme is completely backwards. Your 401k depends way more on people continuing to inflate it upwards. And you have ZERO guarantee, anything can happen. At least social security is a government backed program, and they can ALWAYS find more money. Maybe it's the best solution at the time, but they can. They can raise taxes, borrow, simply print more money. And don't nitpick these points, because yes I understand there are issues and it's more complicated.. but they can do it.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
I agree, but you have to specify where you're going pull those taxes from. We need a "sustainable tax base".
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  How about re-increasing the corporate tax rate? How about taxing self employed people social security/medicare without a cap instead of stopping at ~140k? How about massively increasing long-term capital gains, or even just getting rid of it. Income is income- tax it the same. Even just increase the standard tax on people. If the average person paid 10% instead of 7.5% into SS/medicare but their SS doubled in the long run, are you really saying the average person would be against that? There are a billion ways to do this. I am not an expert, but I'm not clueless either. Plenty of other countries tax more and provide guarantees to the people. This country wants to make it seem like everything is a "choice" but it's completely to benefit the rich. "Oh I get to choose my healthcare and how much risk I want to take that I have to pay this year, great!" "Oh I get to choose what investments to put my money into even though I have zero control over the actual outcome, great!"
  - BeetleB 5y ago
    > How about re-increasing the corporate tax rate? No argument there. > How about taxing self employed people social security/medicare without a cap instead of stopping at ~140k? Why limit this to self employed people? The cap is there for all workers. And self employed people pay double the tax - if you are not self employed, your employer is paying half of it. Self employed people already have a larger burden. > How about massively increasing long-term capital gains, or even just getting rid of it. Income is income- tax it the same. Because then people won't invest in ... much. My guess is the majority of current investments that are profitable would no longer be if taxed as regular income. That then means many businesses will stop existing since people will not invest in them. > If the average person paid 10% instead of 7.5% into SS/medicare but their SS doubled in the long run, are you really saying the average person would be against that? Definitely. Even though it likely is a good solution. The real problem is that the US government, by law, is not allowed to keep the excess SS funds they collect in an "SS bucket". If the SS payouts are less than SS tax collected, the excess is required to be spent elsewhere. We've lost decades of excess SS collections because of this. > There are a billion ways to do this. I am not an expert, but I'm not clueless either. The CBO exists to do such calculations. Increasing SS/Medicare tends to work. Removing incentives to invest, however, is disastrous. > "Oh I get to choose what investments to put my money into even though I have zero control over the actual outcome, great!" There's a disconnect between saying "long term capital gains benefit the rich" and "investments are bad because I have zero control over the outcome." The latter statement is as true for you as it is for rich people. If you think investing is such a bad thing with low returns, then let them have their long term capital gains tax.
unmole 5y ago
> We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security What you're saying is young working age people should pay for those who didn't save for retirement? And what happens when a recession hits anyways and the tax base takes a hit?
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >What you're saying is young working age people should pay for those who didn't save for retirement? Nice way to twist my words. If the system worked like I'm describing from the beginning, you wouldn't even be able to say that. Because you wouldn't need to save a substantial amount of money in a better system- everyone would have been paying it all along. And a new young working age person would be paying more, but it's to benefit themselves in the future. So I don't even understand your point. >And what happens when a recession hits anyways and the tax base takes a hit? That should be planned for in whatever various ways it's being paid for. You pull in a little more money from taxes than you need to account for a buffer etc. This isn't rocket science.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > Nice way to twist my words. I am pointing out the consequences of what you're suggesting. > If the system worked like I'm describing from the beginning I thought we were discussing the real world as it exists, not Narnia. > You pull in a little more money from taxes Even more taxes! Does it ever end?
scarface74 5y ago
Because surely nothing could go wrong with depending on government for your financial security. The government doesn’t need more income. Have you seen how the federal government’s budget is allocated?
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  >Because surely nothing could go wrong with depending on government for your financial security Yeah because surely nothing could go wrong with having all your money in a volatile market you have no control over.. The government already guarantees social security, what is your point? If you trust the financial markets over the guarantee of the U.S. Government then I can't convince you otherwise.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    The government can “guarantee” a lot of stuff. What happens when the government can no longer borrow money and either cuts benefits or starts printing money that leads to inflation? We have already seen that in other countries.

Auracle 5y ago

Most 401ks are probably in funds that automatically start allocating more and more bonds as they approach retirement age. And frankly, if I could stop contributing to social security and invest it instead I would in a heartbeat. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme that relies on more and more citizens paying in. That’s unsustainable, and by the time I retire I’m sure they’re at least going to move the age to collect up.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
I've learned to relax about Social Security. I look at it as "diversification" of my retirement sources. I don't want all my eggs in the 401K basket either.
- Auracle 5y ago
  I agree with you there, but I certainly don't want it expanded and taking more of my income. When you're self employed it really hurts.
eatsyourtacos 5y ago
Calling social security a ponzi scheme while thinking your 401k isn't a ponzi scheme is completely backwards. Your 401k depends way more on people continuing to inflate it upwards. And you have ZERO guarantee, anything can happen. At least social security is a government backed program, and they can ALWAYS find more money. Maybe it's the best solution at the time, but they can. They can raise taxes, borrow, simply print more money. And don't nitpick these points, because yes I understand there are issues and it's more complicated.. but they can do it.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

I agree, but you have to specify where you're going pull those taxes from. We need a "sustainable tax base".

eatsyourtacos 5y ago
How about re-increasing the corporate tax rate? How about taxing self employed people social security/medicare without a cap instead of stopping at ~140k? How about massively increasing long-term capital gains, or even just getting rid of it. Income is income- tax it the same. Even just increase the standard tax on people. If the average person paid 10% instead of 7.5% into SS/medicare but their SS doubled in the long run, are you really saying the average person would be against that? There are a billion ways to do this. I am not an expert, but I'm not clueless either. Plenty of other countries tax more and provide guarantees to the people. This country wants to make it seem like everything is a "choice" but it's completely to benefit the rich. "Oh I get to choose my healthcare and how much risk I want to take that I have to pay this year, great!" "Oh I get to choose what investments to put my money into even though I have zero control over the actual outcome, great!"
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > How about re-increasing the corporate tax rate? No argument there. > How about taxing self employed people social security/medicare without a cap instead of stopping at ~140k? Why limit this to self employed people? The cap is there for all workers. And self employed people pay double the tax - if you are not self employed, your employer is paying half of it. Self employed people already have a larger burden. > How about massively increasing long-term capital gains, or even just getting rid of it. Income is income- tax it the same. Because then people won't invest in ... much. My guess is the majority of current investments that are profitable would no longer be if taxed as regular income. That then means many businesses will stop existing since people will not invest in them. > If the average person paid 10% instead of 7.5% into SS/medicare but their SS doubled in the long run, are you really saying the average person would be against that? Definitely. Even though it likely is a good solution. The real problem is that the US government, by law, is not allowed to keep the excess SS funds they collect in an "SS bucket". If the SS payouts are less than SS tax collected, the excess is required to be spent elsewhere. We've lost decades of excess SS collections because of this. > There are a billion ways to do this. I am not an expert, but I'm not clueless either. The CBO exists to do such calculations. Increasing SS/Medicare tends to work. Removing incentives to invest, however, is disastrous. > "Oh I get to choose what investments to put my money into even though I have zero control over the actual outcome, great!" There's a disconnect between saying "long term capital gains benefit the rich" and "investments are bad because I have zero control over the outcome." The latter statement is as true for you as it is for rich people. If you think investing is such a bad thing with low returns, then let them have their long term capital gains tax.

unmole 5y ago

> We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security What you're saying is young working age people should pay for those who didn't save for retirement? And what happens when a recession hits anyways and the tax base takes a hit?

eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>What you're saying is young working age people should pay for those who didn't save for retirement? Nice way to twist my words. If the system worked like I'm describing from the beginning, you wouldn't even be able to say that. Because you wouldn't need to save a substantial amount of money in a better system- everyone would have been paying it all along. And a new young working age person would be paying more, but it's to benefit themselves in the future. So I don't even understand your point. >And what happens when a recession hits anyways and the tax base takes a hit? That should be planned for in whatever various ways it's being paid for. You pull in a little more money from taxes than you need to account for a buffer etc. This isn't rocket science.
- unmole 5y ago
  > Nice way to twist my words. I am pointing out the consequences of what you're suggesting. > If the system worked like I'm describing from the beginning I thought we were discussing the real world as it exists, not Narnia. > You pull in a little more money from taxes Even more taxes! Does it ever end?

scarface74 5y ago

Because surely nothing could go wrong with depending on government for your financial security. The government doesn’t need more income. Have you seen how the federal government’s budget is allocated?

eatsyourtacos 5y ago
>Because surely nothing could go wrong with depending on government for your financial security Yeah because surely nothing could go wrong with having all your money in a volatile market you have no control over.. The government already guarantees social security, what is your point? If you trust the financial markets over the guarantee of the U.S. Government then I can't convince you otherwise.
- scarface74 5y ago
  The government can “guarantee” a lot of stuff. What happens when the government can no longer borrow money and either cuts benefits or starts printing money that leads to inflation? We have already seen that in other countries.