Who needs to (should) tighten their belt...

[SoutherDem]

... to fix the problem?

To me that should and is the real question.

Democrats want to tighten the belt of the rich and corporations.

Republicans want to tighten the belt of the poor and middle class.

I feel most all belts need to be tightened, only the most poor should be left alone in this debate.

Those who are a bit below the median income (about $27K) should be left alone, simply because they are not even keeping their heads above water, so everyone who can't find a job and make below say $22K loosen their belts a some (maybe lower taxes on those only or give them some other help). Those making $22K to say $50K, leave alone, status quo. $50K-$150K take some of the Bush tax cuts away, $150K-$500 remove all bush tax cuts. $500K-$1M remove Bush tax cuts plus 1%. $1M and up remove Bush tax cut plus 5%.
Rework the corporate tax rate, by removing all the loopholes which are allowing companies with billions of dollars in profit to pay no tax at all. Once the corporate tax rate actually means something and the local business making $500K in profit isn't paying more tax than a giant corporation making $500B in profit then consider adjusting the tax rate to be competitive. Have this tax rate to be progressive just like our income tax so the higher you profits the higher your rates, this will protect the REAL small business the Republicans are always worried about, yet would make the big businesses best way of saving taxes is to reinvest the profits in capital expenditures and hiring more people. Those who get new or better jobs will owe more in tax and further expand the economy. I call this "Flow-Up Economics".

As to the spending cuts? Yes, I am sure there are lots of places the budget can be cut, without hurting the poor and middle class, lets say the military and many of those spending items the Republican hate unless it is for their state or district. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid does need to be fixed, but massive cuts is not the answer. A real womb to tomb single payer health care plan would eliminate the need for Medicare and Medicaid because everyone is covered by the one plan. Social Security we all know is in trouble, and needs repairing.

(I will speak treason now).

We are living longer. If I understand correctly when 65 was set as the retirement age people only lived to be about 67, it was never planned to be drawn for 25-30 years. Some people are working longer because they want to. Allowing people to continue to work and get some of their SS, similar to what can happen at 62 may be the answer. If you are healthy set the age for retirement at partial SS at 65, but full SS doesn't kick in till 68 or maybe 70. Those not healthy may retire as early as 60 or get disability whenever needed. Raise the cap on the SSI taxes collected, don't stop at a certain income level. Also, means test SS benefits, change the "I" in SSI from income to insurance use it if needed, in other words, let there be a wealth limit to receiving SS. Basically, even though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs may have paid into SS their whole lives, that doesn't automatically mean they will collect SS.

I know some won't like my ideas, especially those pertaining to SSI, but something must be done or we will all suffer including our kids and grandkids. I feel this would "tighten the belt" in a fair manner, tightening everyone's belt only as much as they can afford to tighten it. Shared sacrifice may be the only answer if we want America to remain a great nation.

Please share your thought, both positive and negative, but please be gentle this is my first original post. (I checked and didn't see a similar post, but if I missed it I apologize for a DUP).

[jimmyflint]

1. China and anybody else using slave labor.

Any corporation outsourcing and off shoring. All oil and corporate/factory farm subsidies. DOD cut back to at least Clinton levels. Cut all funding for the WOD. That's where I would start.

[SoutherDem]

6. All good starting points

As to slave labor, tax slave labor so it cost more. Add taxes, tariffs or some other fee to balance the benefit of sending jobs over seas.

[The Magistrate]

2. Average Longevity is Deceptive, Sir

Increased life-span correlates very closely with economic status, and with occupational status. People who are well off and do work that has little physical stress live a great deal longer than people lived half a century ago. People who do hard work without a great deal of pay do not live very much longer than they did then. Further, most of the increase in average longevity between now and then owes to the great reductions in juvenile mortality: put simply, people who survived to adulthood then lived approximately as long as they do now, with allowances made for social status and general levels of health. People who made it through to sixty-five could expect to live a fair span of years.

[SoutherDem]

11. Health care would increase life span even more.

I did include a "good" inclusive heath care plan in my total solution. I do agree, lifespan in directly related to economic status, but even as it is now by 2050 it is thought the average lifespan will be 100. That is taking those things into consideration. With everyone being able to see a doctor when needed that 100 may increase some more. I know prolonging retirement is not popular, but many want to continue work pass 65. Both of my parents are in their 70's. My mother can't work but wants to and my father recently loss his job and want to find another one, and neither needs to work.

Maybe I am being too narrow minded, but I have trouble finding enough to do during my two week Christmas vacation, and almost went craze during a two month break between jobs (it was a planned break, so I wasn't looking for work, just waiting for the new job to start). I can't imagine not wanting to work, unless I wasn't able, which I left revisions for.

Thank you for your comments.

[BeFree]

13. That needs to be codified

Meaning made part of the law that pertains to who is paid what.

We do it already. A soldier is reimbursed especially for his' or her's life-threats. Paid and treated like a slave at first, yes, but if fortunate to survive, gets pretty good rewards.

Workman's comp is also based upon threats to life and injury, depending on the job.
The jobs that lead to an earlier death need to be recognized and given due compensation.

We all need our roofers. How many secretaries work on building roofs?

[daleo]

23. Good points, Magistrate

Most people don't understand these fine points of demography. They make a tremendous difference when considering programs like pensions.

[Petrushka]

3. "Social Security we all know is in trouble, and needs repairing."????? Don't look now, but . . .

. . . some of us know better than that!
:spank:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnEDUsU61Ns

Edited to add:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKfa4bCwOgo&feature=related

[SoutherDem]

7. I was talking long term not the next 3 weeks

I watched the youtube video.

1). Dennis K. was talking about checks would go out if we default, I didn't say they wouldn't.

2). Dennis K. stated the money was their till 2037, 26 years from now. If nothing is done that means when people my age and younger need it the most, it may not be there.

3). I didn't say SSI was causing the debt crisis, I simple want to see people my age and younger actually get SSI, if we need it.

4). Many agree with Dennis K., the money is safe "in the bank", other say that money is now all IOU's.

5). I have seen the SSI can kicked down the road for over 30 years, I just want someone to finally pick the can up.

However, I respect you opinion and appreciate the reply.

[Petrushka]

9. SSI = Supplemental Security Income.

Were you talking about SSI or SS (Social Security). There is a difference.
Anyway . . . :shrug:


When you mentioned "shared sacrifice" in your initial post,
I was reminded of a cartoon someone posted a week or so ago.
In that cartoon, Republicans also believe in Shared Sacrifice:

Lower salaries...........Lower benefits...............Lower taxes
for teachers.............for senior citizens...........for millionaires




Edited to add:
Here's a link indicating that SSI has nothing to do with Social Security: http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/

[SoutherDem]

16. Sorry, you are right, they are different.

But, I still think we should consider Social Security an insurance and not an automatic income. And by the way my "means" test would be a very high standard. I just know too many people who have been able to save, invest, and inherit so that getting that government check is "pocket change", while others have lived paycheck to paycheck their entire lives who couldn't save or invest, and have to make the choice of food or medicine, because the monthly check barely cover the basic utilities. I see no problem telling someone you have too much wealth for the government to give you money you will just give to your kids.

[Petrushka]

18. What makes you think Social Security isn't "insurance" rather than "automatic income"?

What do you think FICA means? http://www.ssa.gov/mystatement/fica.htm

Apparently, we run around in different circles. I mean: Unfortunately, I'm not acquainted with any of those "too many people" who you "just know...have been able to save, invest, and inherit so that getting that government check is 'pocket change'...." to them. Nevertheless, I believe that any one of those people---with "too much wealth" who worked and paid into Social Security through the Federal Insurance Contribution Act---is entitled to whatever "pocket change" they might have left after paying taxes on their taxable retirement income.



:dilemma:

FWIW: Fortunately, when it comes to taxable retirement income, my piddly Teamsters pension check coupled with my Social Security check puts me in the 14K bracket . . . where I think I know more about choices, problems, etc. than you do. So . . . (**sigh**) Always remember: Y' all needn't ever t' be teachin' yer great-granny how t' suck eggs.

[sabrina 1]

15. Yes, it is frustrating to see that on a Democratic board.

It shows that the Rightwing message machine works a lot better than the Democratic message machine. Which leads to the question, why do Democrats not work as hard to get the truth out as the right does to lie to the American people?

[SoutherDem]

17. Please send additional link(s)

I am willing to agree if you or someone will include some information on the subject. I just checked several websites, and the ones which were NOT conservative agreed that for the near future social security is in good shape, till 2018-2020. Will start to fall short till around 2037-2043, then if nothing is done will be broke. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, and hope I am, I just haven't seen any information which gives a good long-term outlook for the social security program.
I know it is total BS to say if there isn't a debt ceiling increase in a few weeks social security checks won't go out, but I am talking much longer.

[Petrushka]

19. I don't know how reliable any of these links might be, but they present some interesting points.

Anyway . . . IMO, removing the cap would prevent future problems for Social Security recipients . . . IF, in the meantime, someone can locate a fire-breathing dragon to protect that hands-off lock-box where the Social Security fund should be, indeed, secure.



http://www.financialjobbankblog.com/2011/05/is-social-security-bankrupt.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/201105110025

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/news-03-2011/social_security_program_is_not_yet_bankrupt.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34941334/Will_Baby_Boomers_Bankrupt_Social_Security

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/17/AARP-Open-to-Discussing-Social-Security-Changes.aspx

[Blue-Jay]

4. Yep. We should work until we die.

[SoutherDem]

8. Most would do just that if SSI goes away.

But, I understand your point.

I am simply saying I want SSI to still be around in 2100, and I am willing to work to 70 and have it too 90, than plan on retiring at 65 and not have it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. "The problem" is that no one is buying stuff.

No one is buying stuff because those with the money are hoarding it, and those that don't... constitute 85% of the population.

The employment-population ratio is down 20% from what it was a decade ago. Those people are out of work. The job losses are much greater than the unemployment rate would indicates. Raising the retirement age further floods the job market and makes labor cheaper.

Men in Mississippi have a lifespan of 67. People aren't living *that* much longer, and the 1983 SS tax hike was implemented with that in mind.

"Austerity" "Living within our means" and "tightening our belts" frames which are useless when dealing with a national economy. Keynsian fiscal policy dictates that you spend during recessions and raise taxes during booms.

[U4ikLefty]

10. The wealthy have a much bigger belt. nt

[Incitatus]

12. Even 27K seems pretty low.

My wife and I live off a lot more than that and we have no kids. I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to raise a family on that income and have to pay taxes on top of that. I would have no problem paying more in taxes, but I don't think any income over 40K should be taxed, especially when you are raising kids.

[SoutherDem]

14. Good point

I was less meaning those exact levels, I just started with the national median income of $27K, perhaps the beginning point should be $50K. I was more wanting to draw a picture of ways the "belt could be tightened" without it causing the poor to do more tightening than the rich.

Thanks for commenting on the tax part of the post.

[jtuck004]

20. Retire from what?

With an unemployment rate of 16.2%, millions of people are sitting idle, having been torn from their employment at 50+. Given that we may not see unemployment rates of 5-6% for another 10 years, perhaps longer, meaning that they will have no income until they can get a paltry bit of social security if they can manage to live for another few years with no income. (It also means that millions of people will watch as their financial security and ability to find a job that pays a living wage disappear, but that's another post).

The only thing broken about SS is that it doesn't cover enough people well enough.

There are about 38 million people now getting SS, here. We added roughly 700,000 people in the past year or so, a process which is accelerating because about 8000 people a day are now turning 65. A full 50% of them have less than $2000 in the bank, and 1/3 have no other income except social security, according to the Social Security Administration. From Bernie Sanders recent report here:

"There are millions of seniors today who do not know where they will get their next meal. A report released in 2009 stated that, there are 5 million seniors who face the threat of hunger, almost 3 million seniors who are at risk of going hungry, and almost 1 million seniors who do go hungry due to financial constraints."

Any increase in retirement age will, without question, push additional people into poverty and hunger. This will be done because a choice was made to support investment banks in getting millions of dollars in bonuses for continuing the great Ponzi scheme that has us locked into this recession, instead of investing in the country and the people, creating jobs, and demand. Trickle-up poverty is the result.

What is the comfort level? How many more of our neighbors should our elected officials turn out into the street, people who may never know the simple constant of food, heat, or shelter ever again?

Tighten the belts equally? Does the name Paulson ring a bell? Hedge fund manager, he made in one hour last year what someone making $50,000 dollars a year working 47 straight years would make. His tax rate is about 15% because he didn't actually have to work for the money, just borrow some and make bets.

I would not take another nickel in taxes or benefits from anyone who makes less than that as long as we don't have the guts to make the half-million or so very wealthy people pay their fair share, including most major corporations, and most especially those with international components who are hiring overseas.

Let's lift the cap on wages that Social Security is collected from. We should have a means test which stops the benefit from going to people who have, say, more than 100 times the median income, (today about $33,000, as opposed to the average of about $50,000), whether they get it as earned or unearned income. Bring in money from people like Paulson who don't pay one penny toward the lives of the people who build the bridges and roads, who teach in the schools, who fight the fires, who work in the underpaid garment factories to make his shirts, who lose their fingers in the slaughter houses so he can have his steaks...the list is too long, but you get the gist.

Is that gentle enough?

[Petrushka]

22. Thank you for the links . . . especially the link to Bernie Sanders' report.

Yours is a very thoughtful post . . . thank you for that, too.

:thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

21. i am fine with taking our bush tax cuts away. but be clear. we have been tightening the belt for 8

years now. not any more room for tightening. we well lived within our means. our means were cut significantly. wage stagnant. cost escalates. we could donw grade and live within our means again. but there is always the time and place, and it is not here and now.

[taterguy]

24. Anyone I don't like

Obviously