SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: geode00 who wrote (262355)4/22/2008 10:52:58 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Contracting and paying for check ups and other preventative care is not paying for unlikely bad events.

Which is why calling it insurance is also a pretty poor name for it. It should be called something more like "a health care payment plan" rather than "health insurance".

Let's fix SS by simply getting rid of the income cap. That solves SS and we can move on.

1 - It doesn't solve the Social Security problem. It doesn't even solve what you identify as the problem (the fiscal balance of the SS system), and it doesn't touch the larger problem (the cost of Social Security and other entitlements.

2 - The Social Security Tax is in isolation regressive, but taxes as a whole in the US are progressive, with the wealthy paying most of the taxes and also paying a disproportionate share, even with SS taxes being regressive. If you are going to eliminate the regressive part by greatly increasing taxes for high income workers, than there isn't any justification for the extent that the income tax rates climb as workers make more money.

3 - Large tax increases are damaging to the country.

The biggest hedge fund manager made the same last year as 81,000 average American families.

Which doesn't mean that imposing high taxes on him is a good idea, and even if it was increasing the cap on social security taxes wouldn't touch him, it would instead harm high wage employees, who are upper middle or lower upper class, not mega-rich.


You said the cost of entitlements are spiraling out of control. I believe that was when I asked (again) how much is too much? Give me a number, a percentage, a ballpark because it just sounds like indistinct grumbling.


You want the current cost, look it up, its in a million places on the net. You want the future costs? You expect an exact prediction? The ballpark is that entitlements are taking an ever large portion of our economy, and in the coming years will exceed, not just the nominal or even real dollar amounts of the current total for all government spending, but also the percentage of the economy of all current government spending.

Shrink the military to zero, and you still have a massively increasing budget.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext