What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[G.T.]

We are living longer.

We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

That is so not the bigger picture.

 

[The Derp]

The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.

No, the number is not shrinking. There are more Millennials + Gen Xers in the workforce than there ever were Baby Boomers + Silents. The number is rising.

75,000,000 Millennials
68,000,000 Gen Zers
141,000,000 Total

74,000,000 Boomers
28,000,000 SIlents
103,000,000 Total

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I told you.
5.4% were over 65 in 1935.
9% were over 65 in 1935. That means there remained a SMALLER percentage in the workforce than 1935.
Today, 15% over 65, which means a MUCH SMALLER percentage in the workforce than 1935.
A shrinking percentage working, supporting a growing percentage in retirement.

And you are working from the assumption that the cap on taxable income remains in place. My proposal removes the cap. That's one of the key components of it. So when you were posting that chart before, about how many people it takes to provide benefits for one person, that's working off the assumption that the cap remains in place. What happens if you remove the cap?

What happens if you remove the cap?

You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.

No, the number is not shrinking. There are more Millennials + Gen Xers in the workforce than there ever were Baby Boomers + Silents. The number is rising.

75,000,000 Millennials
68,000,000 Gen Zers
141,000,000 Total

74,000,000 Boomers
28,000,000 SIlents
103,000,000 Total

141,000,000 Total.......


103,000,000 Total

1.37/1 ratio.......getting worse.

 

[The Derp]

The number of workers supporting a retiree is shrinking.
Simple fact.
To shrink that ratio even more by increasing the percentage of retirees is sheer insanity.
We are living longer. We should be working longer.

There are four key reasons as to why the retirement age must be lowered:

1. It doesn't benefit the worker to work until age 70 when life expectancy is 78. So people may be living longer, but not much than at any point over the last 40 years. Life expectancy has nearly plateaued since 1980. Old people shouldn't be in the workforce. They should be retired, playing with their grand-kids.

2. It doesn't benefit the company to employ a worker at age 70; health care for that worker is going to cost the company more, the company is going to have to pay an older worker a higher wage, and the older worker is going to be using more sick time which harms overall productivity. Why would they incur higher medical costs and more sick time? Because they're old.

3. It doesn't benefit the Millennial worker that currently can't find a job (9.6% unemployment for people age 18-35 vs. 4.2% unemployment for people aged 51-69), and it prevents that Gen Xer or Millennial from advancing in their careers if a Boomer is holding onto a job for no other reason than to max benefits.

4. Finally, the most important point is that it doesn't benefit the economy to have a worker at age 70. The reason is because older workers have a higher rate of savings than younger workers. Which means younger workers are more apt to spend their earnings in the economy rather than squirreling them away and not spending. And our economy grows from spending. So you want workers who are going to spend more and save less because that's better for the economy than workers who don't spend and have a higher rate of savings.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't.

At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia

You can put out whatever babble you want, but they had every right to strike to address working conditions that were putting safety at risk.

 

[JoeB131]

We are living longer.

We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

That is so not the bigger picture.

Exactly. Here's the problem. It's very difficult to get hired when you are past 50 or so.

The idea we are going to put 70 year olds back on the job market so that we can pay for tax cuts for rich people is just silly.

 

[The Derp]

141,000,000 Total.......
103,000,000 Total
1.37/1 ratio.......getting worse.

No, getting better because Boomers and Silents are dying off.

Also, that ratio could be a problem if you're not finding the solve by removing the cap on taxable income and taxing all forms of income.

There's not a single reason as to why there has to be a cap on taxable SS income. Donald Trump only pays 6.2% of $127,000 towards Social Security. Which is the same percentage someone who makes $53K a year pays. That's fucking stupid. Remove the cap on taxable income, cap benefits for higher earners, lower the retirement age, and expand benefits. That way, you get the older, obsolete workers out of the workforce and replace them either with younger workers, or robots built and maintained by younger workers.

It benefits no one to have someone work to age 70. In fact, it harms the economy.

 

[The Derp]

Exactly. Here's the problem. It's very difficult to get hired when you are past 50 or so. The idea we are going to put 70 year olds back on the job market so that we can pay for tax cuts for rich people is just silly.

He's not talking about keeping 70 year olds in the work for to pay for tax cuts. He opposes those dumb tax cuts. He's saying people should stay that long in the workforce to lift the strain on entitlements. But that's coming from the assumption that you don't remove the cap on taxable SS income, and don't put that tax on all forms of income (including; Capital Gains, Inheritance, etc.).

 

[G.T.]

We are living longer.

We should be working longer.

Common. Fricking. Sense.

That is so not the bigger picture.

Exactly. Here's the problem. It's very difficult to get hired when you are past 50 or so.

The idea we are going to put 70 year olds back on the job market so that we can pay for tax cuts for rich people is just silly.

I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handed

 

[The Derp]

You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.

How much is "a bit" in your world? And what liabilities are being incurred?

 

[The Derp]

You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.

From PBS: "What Impact Would Eliminating the Payroll Cap Have on Social Security?"

Question: How much revenue would come into the Social Security Trust Fund each year and how far out would Social Security solvency be extended if the payroll cap were to be eliminated?

Paul Solman: I’ve just gone back to a story we did on this very subject back in 2005 with Columbia finance professor Stephen Zeldes, “Raising Tax Cap Explored as Way to Close Social Security Gap,” and here’s what I reported at the time:

“Removing the cap entirely, thereby imposing a flat tax of 12.4 percent on all earnings — essentially a $100 billion a year tax increase on the wealthy — would more than completely close the funding gap.”

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't.

At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia

You can put out whatever babble you want, but they had every right to strike to address working conditions that were putting safety at risk.

In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

141,000,000 Total.......
103,000,000 Total
1.37/1 ratio.......getting worse.

No, getting better because Boomers and Silents are dying off.

Also, that ratio could be a problem if you're not finding the solve by removing the cap on taxable income and taxing all forms of income.

There's not a single reason as to why there has to be a cap on taxable SS income. Donald Trump only pays 6.2% of $127,000 towards Social Security. Which is the same percentage someone who makes $53K a year pays. That's fucking stupid. Remove the cap on taxable income, cap benefits for higher earners, lower the retirement age, and expand benefits. That way, you get the older, obsolete workers out of the workforce and replace them either with younger workers, or robots built and maintained by younger workers.

It benefits no one to have someone work to age 70. In fact, it harms the economy.

No, getting better because Boomers and Silents are dying off.

As life expectancy rises and birthrates decline, the ratio is getting worse.

cap benefits for higher earners

You want to turn it into a welfare program?
Careful, you'll reduce support for it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.

How much is "a bit" in your world? And what liabilities are being incurred?

How much is "a bit" in your world?

A bit. Not enough to push back the depletion of the trust fund more than a few years.

And what liabilities are being incurred?

You double the tax collected from someone, you double (not exactly, close enough) the benefits they are due.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You collect a bit more revenue now and accrue more liabilities in the future.

From PBS: "What Impact Would Eliminating the Payroll Cap Have on Social Security?"

Question: How much revenue would come into the Social Security Trust Fund each year and how far out would Social Security solvency be extended if the payroll cap were to be eliminated?

Paul Solman: I’ve just gone back to a story we did on this very subject back in 2005 with Columbia finance professor Stephen Zeldes, “Raising Tax Cap Explored as Way to Close Social Security Gap,” and here’s what I reported at the time:

“Removing the cap entirely, thereby imposing a flat tax of 12.4 percent on all earnings — essentially a $100 billion a year tax increase on the wealthy — would more than completely close the funding gap.”

More recently (Septempter 2010), here’s what Janemarie Mulvey wrote in a report for the Congressional Research Service:

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”​

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations

DERP!

 

[The Derp]

As life expectancy rises and birthrates decline, the ratio is getting worse..

Life expectancy has remained largely flat since 1980 and currently stands at 78.

You want to turn it into a welfare program?
Careful, you'll reduce support for it.

How would it be a welfare program if you pay into it? If you're paying into it, you're earning an entitlement. Welfare is what Conservatives use to balance their budgets.

 

[JoeB131]

I think the idea that a technologically advanced species should work more than it plays, in life, is a complete fucking waste and ungratefulness of the gift we've been handed

I kind of agree. Here's the thing. We have accepted that we are required to work for a living, but there's actually less work to do. Most production is automated, most customer service is automated.

 

[The Derp]

“If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations
DERP!

What do you think this proves?

 

[The Derp]

A bit. Not enough to push back the depletion of the trust fund more than a few years.

So you don't know. Why am I not surprised? BTW - according to the links I provided, it would push it out 75 years. That's according to the PBS article I posted. You know, the one you read but didn't understand?

So you're just pulling this out of your ass. Why do you do that, anyway? Why do you have a compulsion to respond when you don't know what you're talking about? You do that often, BTW. You make wild claims, then refuse to back them up. You use deliberately vague words and phrases, to give yourself wiggle room on the parameters. Or you just make shit up. Bitch move. Pretty transparent, and very, very lazy and sloppy. And indicative of what you really are; a shitty propagandist. You're not even good at it. That's what's so disappointing.

You double the tax collected from someone, you double (not exactly, close enough) the benefits they are due.

Says who?