Obama 'offering to cut US pensions' for deficit deal

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by flopticalcube, Apr 6, 2013.

  1. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #1
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22042555

    Anyone have any thoughts on this? Seems timely given the rising number of boomers about to draw on their social security.
     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    I read that the CPI will be maintained for the lowest income beneficiaries and if that's the case, then I'm ok with it. People who receive high value pensions and health care benefits probably can take a small cut in their SS benefits, the poor can't.
     
  3. flopticalcube thread starter macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    He is also going to call for a $3m cap: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras

    I was actually surprised that there was no cap to begin with as most countres have limits on how much you can stash away tax free (but not necessarily on its growth).
     
  4. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
    Got a link for that ?
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    When your budget is trashed by both the left and the right, we may be onto something here.
     
  6. KaraH macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    Location:
    DC
    #6
    There have been articles that say he could do chained CPI but only IF he put restrictions on it that would not hurt the poor. If those restrictions are part of the proposal the White House would be pointing to them constantly to answer critics.
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    As a general POV, I believe Social Security should be held as a resolute commitment between the government and the people.

    Yet, SS can and should be adjusted, according to conditions, so long as the intent is to uphold that commitment for future generations.
     
  8. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #8
    I was put into time-out for a month for asking why the GOP was so intent on harming the elderly, so I won't do that again. (edit- I certainly don't mean to generalize or stereotype any members or individuals. I'm merely asking about the policies that are the point of this thread)

    That being said, I have to ask, aren't there other ways of balancing the budget and growing our economy that don't include cutting benefits for the most at risk of our society? Why do we have to hurt the elderly, the sick, or the poor to balance our budgets when we have people who are buying 30 million dollar yaughts, airplanes, and houses all while squirreling away millions upon millions overseas (yes, I'm looking at you Romney)?
     
  9. Shrink macrumors G3

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #9
    Well, I certainly can see why you were Timed Out!!

    Those terrible, radical, insane ideas of yours are clearly meant solely to create anger and discomfort in others!!

    The very idea of defending those in need of support among us. Probably a Commie, too.

    You're on notice, pal...watch you're step!!

    I Post Report Trolling!!!

    :rolleyes: ;)
     
  10. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #10
    I think the problem with the taxes on the rich is that they generally target income, and not wealth. I'm not sure about this specifically, but I do know that there was some noise in California about it.

    Look, if you're going to tax people, do it in a fair, efficient, and effective manner. Get rid of the IRS which just screws over everybody else, and tax wealth.
     
  11. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #11
    How do you "tax wealth?" Income is the easiest and most equitable manner to tax people on an annual basis, but the GOP has stripped even that of most of its effectiveness by electing to give preferential treatment to certain kinds of income, and granting all sorts of loopholes and deductions for those who make the most income.

    As for wealth, the GOP is doing everything it can to prevent any taxation on wealth. Hell, the estate tax is the main method by which accumulated wealth is taxed, and it is demonized by libertarians and republicans alike.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    Why should the elderly escape when everyone else is tightening their budgets/dealing with cuts? They've had the most amount of time to accumulate wealth and/or save for retirement. Most of the elderly today lived through the best times in America in regards to wealth accumulation.

    Why am I saving 18% of my paycheck for retirement if I am paying for the government to take care of people who made more than I did during their working year and saved nothing?
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    How do you know they made more and saved nothing? We don't have "means testing" because the GOP won't allow us to. The Democrats have suggested protecting those elderly who truly need help by reducing the benefits offered to those who made a lot and saved for their retirement, but have been stymied at every turn.

    You are saving 18% of your paycheck for your retirement. I thought that was obvious.

    I don't exempt the wealthy from tightening their belts, but you seem to forget ONE MAJOR FACT. When this country was faced with turmoil, war and economic crisis, the elderly were willing to pay marginal tax rates that went as high as 91%. They paid their fair share. They didn't run up deficits like the Reagan/Bush/Bush generation. They were responsible, and they shouldn't pay for today's wealthy being greedy and being able to convince so many people that low taxes somehow benefit them.
     
  14. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    The 65+ range is the wealthiest age segment in the US, they are the shareholders demanding unrealistic returns at the cost of the younger generation's unemployment. They may have paid higher tax rates in the past, but they were also the driving force to get us where we are now. The game didn't change over night.

    Means testing for social security should be a necessity, I would even go so far to provide more money to the poorest segment of the elderly population at the cost of the wealthy.
     
  15. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #15
    Well if there wasn't an income tax, what exactly are you going to deduct?

    And taxing wealth means that actual wealth, property, stocks, whatever, are taxed, and not your income. People that are targeted with "taxes on the rich" are taxed via income, which, they receive little or none because they just live off of wealth that has already been accumulated.

    The reason these tax increases aren't effective is exactly that. And even if somehow the wealthy were affected by income tax increases, they are in a position where they can use deductions or just funnel it into companies or property, where the money is safe.

    It's like trying to beat somebody at their own game, where they make the rules. It's just nonsense.

    Well libertarians don't like taxes at all, so obviously they are against estate taxes.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    I think they should base it on inflation for the elderly AKA CPI-E.

    Chained CPI does seem more realistic than CPI though.
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    Have you seen the Tax Haven Documents thread in this forum? Let's take that, and roll with it directly into this.

    If you tax wealth, and you have those wealthy offshoring their wealth into foreign tax havens, the US has nothing to tax the people for, because they have no money per se, as it is not in this country. Therefore, they would be taxed as cheaply as the poor people are, and perhaps even less so.

    So following your method, the wealthy get a free pass, keep their money (as it is offshored), get taxed very little to nothing, and get away with it. While the poor and middle class get taxed for what they have as normal. No fair revenue will make it to where it needs to be because the greedy keep their greed, the middle won't have enough to stay in the black, and the poor won't have enough to keep a roof over their heads.

    Our government would fall further into disarray, and that is after cutting all the spending that it could.

    In short, this method would fail miserably, and still benefit the wealthy at the same time.

    BL.
     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    I'm all for eliminating all deductions. We agree!

    I absolutely agree, I'm just shocked you would suggest we tax people on wealth they already paid taxes on. That's like 10x more socialist than any Democrat I know! I'm proud of you!

    I know! I know!

    The only thing we can do is elect people who are not beholden to the wealthy. At this point, on a scale of 1 (not beholden) to 100(in the pockets), we only have two viable options. Democrats - 80 and republicans 99.

    Who do you like?

    Oh, you like libertarians... in other words, your vote is just as effective as my dog's. Oh wait, he doesn't vote. Yep, that's what I meant.
     
  19. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #19
    I think this New York Times article highlights my points much better than I can explain.

    Link

    I dislike the income tax because it's entirely too cumbersome, and favors the already wealthy over wager earners.
     
  20. flopticalcube thread starter macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #20
    Complicated?... nah...

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    Wow
     
  22. chagla macrumors 6502a

    chagla

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2008
    #22
    It is OK to cut pensions/funds for the average American.
    NOT OK to tax the rich? hmmmm.....
    ***

    A reasonable person would ask, which of these two would be adversely affected if cuts (for average Joe or increased tax for the rich) was put in place?
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Social Security benefits are going to everyone, even the rich. If we did means testing for Social Security it would effectively be a tax on the rich.

    Instead we are letting cash and asset horders have a bigger SS check than people who actually need it.
     
  24. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #24
    I cannot tell you how proud I am to see you embracing your inner liberal. It's been a long road, but you truly have risen among the worthy to a place of honor. We are so proud of you ZA. ;)
     
  25. flopticalcube thread starter macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #25
    While that is all well and good, I don't see them saving a whole lot of money by cutting out the rich given that the VAST majority have very little savings left at this point and will rely if not solely at least heavily on SS. There is also the point that by simple means testing you are in effect giving a disincentive to save. Why bother saving your money when you can spend it now and still receive a decent SS check at the end of the day? Clearly, however, some sort of cap would be helpful as would a taper down at some point say once SS drops below 30% of income.
     

Share This Page