3 ms·

> The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme). If you're referring to Social Security in the US, it's no more a Ponzi

by danans 2y ago

> The US made similar guarantees and planed to out-grow the costs (i.e. ponzi scheme). If you're referring to Social Security in the US, it's no more a Ponzi scheme than your home mortgage payment is a Ponzi scheme. In reality it's a progressive tax scheme to prevent senior citizen poverty. To make Social Security solvent, lift the cap on Social Security taxes. Will the working and middle classes benefit more than the wealthy who will pay more in those taxes? Yes, and progressive taxation to prevent abject impoverishment of working and middle class seniors is a good thing.

cjbgkagh 2y ago
The US would still need to outgrow its other problems if the US in general is to remain solvent. I am pretty doubtful that it can.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  Yeah, the two rounds of huge tax cuts since our last semi-balanced budget really screwed us. As they were predicted to.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive. My view is the degradation of the US has been many things over a long time and we're lucky things lasted as long as they have been.
    - danans 2y ago
      > That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive OK. Let's add some things. Free public schools, subsidized public universities, subsidized public vocational colleges, Medicare. All can be funded if we reverse the tens of trillions of wealth that we have channeled upwards with tax cuts for the wealthy and cut taxes for the working class.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        ‘We’? Good luck with that. At least Tankies are honest about the degree of coercion required to get a population to agree on things.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is). (*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That was not at all my point (and yes, it would be preposterous if it was). My point was that large numbers of people agreeing on things may not be as difficult as you seem to think.
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      It really is mostly that, plus the wars. The first round of cuts came at about the same time we started the wars, LOL. The political line was that the tax cuts and (some fucking how) the wars would "pay for themselves" but the CBO was like "um, no, here is approximately how many trillions this will add to the debt" and gee, the latter turned out to be way, way closer to correct. Now, of course, we also have the interest on all that new debt to worry about. [EDIT] To be clear, the Democrats are also to blame for carrying on with the tax cuts, sometimes actively, when they had opportunities to end them.
      - geodel 2y ago
        No it is not. It was possible when economy was growing like > 10% for decades. As soon as that stopped people will look for cuts and tax cuts is just obvious place.
    - IX-103 2y ago
      Oh, it's definitely simplistic. The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people are making more and more, but that extra money is not going to Social Security due to the cap. Additionally, due to longer lifespans and fewer children, the ratio of working to retired people went up. Productivity is also up, which can easily compensate for the change in workforce, but isn't enough to cover both that and the shift in income to fewer, wealthier people whose contributions are capped. The net effect is less money going to Social Security. The easy solution is to remove the cap. That's unfair for the wealthy, but is a lot easier than getting fairer and more equitable wages across the entire economy.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Ah a simple appeal to 'what is fair' - ok now how shall that fairness be manifested? With a drum circle? It's an oligarchical system and you want the people to wrestle power out of the oligarchs hands? Through voting? Have you met people? And if it was so simple why wait until now to do it - clearly there have been some complications. You see this a lot in nature, parasites evolve faster than their hosts, that's why they're still around.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        > The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s. This was true, but the COVID period has actually changed that. Real wages are now up for the median wage earner, and for the median hourly earner. Not by a lot, but they are no longer declining as they were in the period from about 1978-2021.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  The US is essentially the fastest growing rich non-microstate country in the world. If US cannot do it, then I guess that you also believe all other highly developed nations with large social safety nets will become insolvent?

by danans 2y ago

cjbgkagh 2y ago

The US would still need to outgrow its other problems if the US in general is to remain solvent. I am pretty doubtful that it can.

alabastervlog 2y ago
Yeah, the two rounds of huge tax cuts since our last semi-balanced budget really screwed us. As they were predicted to.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive. My view is the degradation of the US has been many things over a long time and we're lucky things lasted as long as they have been.
  - danans 2y ago
    > That and danans 'one thing' seems rather simplistic / reductive OK. Let's add some things. Free public schools, subsidized public universities, subsidized public vocational colleges, Medicare. All can be funded if we reverse the tens of trillions of wealth that we have channeled upwards with tax cuts for the wealthy and cut taxes for the working class.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      ‘We’? Good luck with that. At least Tankies are honest about the degree of coercion required to get a population to agree on things.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        It is clear from your comments here that you're a very cynical person when it comes to national government. Perhaps that is blinding you to the fairly well-known fact that during the period most extolled by conservatives as the golden age of American history (*), upper marginal rates were in the 70-92% range, without much disagreement except for a few people who leveraged their wealth into (Reagan's) political power. Most people didn't see anything wrong with those rates back then, and most surveys even today show Americans in very large numbers in favor of a much more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists (they also think it is much more egalitarian than it actually is). (*) yes, ok, so in reality some of them want to go back to 1890 or even earlier, but I'm trying to focus on a more mainstream conservative attitude.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        There are governments I do like, it is possible to govern well. I just think it's facile to work under the assumption that the answer is simple. That one simple change will take the US from point A to B. The US has radically changed from the 1950s and the idea that one simple change of a 92% top marginal tax rate will make it economically the 1950s again is completely preposterous.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That was not at all my point (and yes, it would be preposterous if it was). My point was that large numbers of people agreeing on things may not be as difficult as you seem to think.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    It really is mostly that, plus the wars. The first round of cuts came at about the same time we started the wars, LOL. The political line was that the tax cuts and (some fucking how) the wars would "pay for themselves" but the CBO was like "um, no, here is approximately how many trillions this will add to the debt" and gee, the latter turned out to be way, way closer to correct. Now, of course, we also have the interest on all that new debt to worry about. [EDIT] To be clear, the Democrats are also to blame for carrying on with the tax cuts, sometimes actively, when they had opportunities to end them.
    - geodel 2y ago
      No it is not. It was possible when economy was growing like > 10% for decades. As soon as that stopped people will look for cuts and tax cuts is just obvious place.
  - IX-103 2y ago
    Oh, it's definitely simplistic. The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people are making more and more, but that extra money is not going to Social Security due to the cap. Additionally, due to longer lifespans and fewer children, the ratio of working to retired people went up. Productivity is also up, which can easily compensate for the change in workforce, but isn't enough to cover both that and the shift in income to fewer, wealthier people whose contributions are capped. The net effect is less money going to Social Security. The easy solution is to remove the cap. That's unfair for the wealthy, but is a lot easier than getting fairer and more equitable wages across the entire economy.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      Ah a simple appeal to 'what is fair' - ok now how shall that fairness be manifested? With a drum circle? It's an oligarchical system and you want the people to wrestle power out of the oligarchs hands? Through voting? Have you met people? And if it was so simple why wait until now to do it - clearly there have been some complications. You see this a lot in nature, parasites evolve faster than their hosts, that's why they're still around.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > The problem is that real wages for the average person has been going down since the 1970s. This was true, but the COVID period has actually changed that. Real wages are now up for the median wage earner, and for the median hourly earner. Not by a lot, but they are no longer declining as they were in the period from about 1978-2021.
throwaway2037 2y ago
The US is essentially the fastest growing rich non-microstate country in the world. If US cannot do it, then I guess that you also believe all other highly developed nations with large social safety nets will become insolvent?