On Federal Taxation in the United States

Jun 20, 2014 16:20:03 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Yes, you are certainly correct: Lifetime annuities (SPIAs) do consume the principal; which is to say, once that money has been invested, one may never again access it as a lump sum.  That is why it is good to have both pools of money (lump sums) and streams of money (never-ending payouts) in retirement.  (Although I have many different streams of income, including both SPIAs and other financial instruments--all of which, together, amount to a rather modest sum of money--I do save my entire Social Security check into my Rainy Day Fund, which is, by definition, a pool of money.  So whenever an emergency rolls around--and it really is a matter of when, not if--I can simply draw from it. as necessary; and I can also use it to purchase a new vehicle, when that time comes about, without having to acquire a new monthly bill, and also having to pay interest on the purchase.)   

I don't disagree with this and didn't actually propose the conditions for withdrawal from the private investment accounts. What I would like to see is that a person can retire at anytime once they reach a certain level of guarenteed "lifetime" benefits for themselves and their spouse if married.

This crap with Social Security related to "early retirement" not being until age 62 and "full retirement" that keeps going up is pure BS IMHO. I'd personally like to see more people retiring by age 55 or so because it doesn't do a person much good to retire when they're too old to enjoy a few years of good health before they become too old to do anything.

Jun 21, 2014 22:29:41 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, I retired at age 57 (on Disability).

And I agree that there is a certain window during which one may travel, or otherwise enjoy life, much more than one may typically do in old age.  (Still, my mother-in-law--my late wife's mother--is 92, and still going strong.  So there are certainly individual exceptions here.) 

The only "pure BS" I can see here--and I have thought this for quite awhile--is that one may continue to accrue larger Social Srcurity benefits up to age 70; yet age 66 is considered "full" retirement age.

Say what? 

To address the post prior to this it should be noted that both parties like and dislike the 60 vote rule in the Senate but no minority has ever used to "filibuster" (that requires the 60 votes to stop) more than the Republican Party since President Obama has been elected. No party has ever resorted to blocking Congressional legislation in the Senate more than Republican, ever. We can also note that the GOP House has also refused to allow legislation to be voted on more notably when the government was partially shut down where Republicans would have voted for the Senate measure to fund government operations.

My proposal has no minimum age for retirement but does have a maximum age of 70 before the safety net kicks in. That actually bothers me because many people simply can't work until they reach 70 for physical and mental reasons. We also have a problem with age discrimination where it's very hard for a person over age 60 to get a job in many cases. I've considered lowering that to 65 for numerous reasons and I'd be open to suggestions on that.

Jun 24, 2014 20:12:44 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I really do not believe that either party is any more prone to using the filibuster as a defensive technique (whenever it is in the minority) than the other party is. And the (apparent) implication that this has something to do with a visceral (and an irrational) distaste for President Obama, on the part of Republicans, is simply ludicrous.

And Harry Reid's invocation of the so-called "nuclear option" last November, thereby requiring only 50 votes (plus the Vice President's tie-breaking vote) to place the Senate's imprimatur upon federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments, is a direct reversal of Sen. Reid's erstwhile disdain for this rules change.  On May 23, 2005, when the Republicans were in control of the Senate, and they were considering this sort of change, Sen. Reid pontificated:  "What they are attempting to do in this instance is really too bad. It will change this body forever. We will be an extension of the House of Representatives, where a simple majority there can determine everything.")

I do, however, agree that there are some people who simply cannot work--especially in a physically demanding job--up until age 70. My own proposal to raise the full retirement age for Social Security by one year--from 66 to 67--although a rather modest change, in one sense, does suffer from this same point. (Not only is it very difficult--if not altogether impossible--for some people to work at physical labor until age 70; but the same can be said, to a very large extent, of age 67.)

I didn't agree with Reid's move on filibusters last year but we can also note that the dramatic increase in the use of the filibuster for rather trite reasons like appointments has gotten out of control. The Senate should discuss the appointee, interview them, and then vote on confirmation and not be engaged in this political obstructionism. The filibuster should be reserved for very significant matters and not used as a political tactic over minor issues. Today's use has simply gotten out-of-control reflecting how disfunctional our government has become. Partisanship has taken precedent over what is important for the nation.

The entire problem with Social Security today is that it's a tax and spend welfare program that provides extremely poor benefits overall. About 40% of retirees require additional welfare assistance (e.g. SNAP) from the government when they do retire. It makes no sense to have one welfare program that requires a secondary welfare program for the same person. My proposal attempts, and to a large degree, succeeds at elimination of welfare assistance for those too old to work. It would dramatically cut the size and cost of the federal government while leaving the American People far better off by reducing poverty based upon the labor of the person during their working career.

Jun 26, 2014 23:38:10 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The term, "obstructionism," is generally used by those who wish to cast in a negative light any attempt to stop the majority's steamrollering of the minority; and even then, only when the majority's views tend to be akin to one's own preferences. 

I do largely agree with your proposal for post-retirement funding, however.  (Although I am not as decidedly opposed to Social Security as you are--I receive a small Social Security check each month; and I would not wish to have it cease, as that would leave me just treading water, financially--I do believe that your proposal makes some pretty good sense.)   

In a sense I totally agree that the term "obstructionism" can be misused or overused but I do find exceptions to that. For example to block one thing, such as an appointment, based upon other disagreements would be pure obstructionism. So long as it relates to the specific matter being addressed then it's just a matter of disagreement and not obstruction. I do believe there does need to be a willingness to compromise a little as well by members of Congress.

A person cannot be so locked into a political ideology that they refuse to address the realities of what's going on. I found that to be the case when addressing Social Security. As a person with a libertarian ideology I didn't like the government "forcing" the person to invest for their retirement years in my proposal but the reality was that without this "force" history demonstrates that about 1/2 of the people won't do it voluntarily. So I had to compromise my political ideology to come up with my privatization plan and what made it palatable was that the person still "owned" the money and it wasn't going to the government. The proposal doesn't take the money away from them but instead forces them to invest it for their own future benefit.

You do slighlty misrepresent my position on Social Security today. I do believe it's required today and actually seek to improve it's benefits during the transitional period during privatization. My biggest issue is for the poor that will only have Social Security when they retire and where those benefits are going to be very low for them  driving them into needing other welfare assistance such as SNAP. It doesn't makes sense to be to have a welfare program like Social Security where the benefits are so low that it requires a person to seek other welfare assistance.

Jun 28, 2014 19:09:39 GMT pjohns1873 said:

First, let me apologize, please, for having misrepresented anything you believe. That was certainly not my intent. Although I believe very deeply in a hearty, robust debate, I certainly do not believe that it is perfectly acceptable to misrepresent of caricature the views of others, in the course of that debate.

As for "obstuctionism," it is probably best to just let that matter go. Your views as concerning the House Republicans, and my views as concerning the Senate (Harry Reid-inspired) Democrats, on this matter, are not likely ever to coincide.

I really do not like to see The Nanny State forcing individuals to act in their own (ultimate) self-interest; but I must concede that this is precisely what the state already does, with regard to Social Security. So your own plan would certainly not be breaking new ground, with regard to this matter.  

No apology necessary. By discussion any misunderstandings can certainly be resolved and so no offense should be taken when a misunderstanding exists. It just requires clarification.

For example I'm no fan of Harry Reid either. LOL

As a libertarian I believe that with "freedom" comes "responsibility" and that was certainly the position of the founders of America. The problem arises when people are not responsible and when that irresponsibility creates an obligation for others.

In th 1930's it was understood that we, as a humane and moral society, could not allow old people to become homeless beggers starving on our street corners just because they were personally irresponsible in providing for their future during their working career. We certainly couldn't allow it for those that due to the circumstances of their lifetime were incapable of providing for their future old age. There were private charities at the time but the problem was so immense that the private charities were literally overwhelmed and couldn't address even a small fraction of those in dire need.

The problem existed and needed to be addressed and only the government was capable of addressing the problem. We have to be able to recognize when the scope of a problem is so great that only the government is capable of addressing it. We can't just stick our head in the sand and ignore problems that exist in our nation but we should require compelling arguments before the government does become involved.

Here is where I differ from most. If the compelling argument exists, as it does related to old people that are unable to support themselves which creates a financial burden on society to keep them housed and fed, then the government interventionism should be to the least extent possible to resolve the problem. Basically we're looking at a "statist" solution because only the government can address the problem (as established by the compelling argument) but there is "big government statism" and there is "small government statism" and I'm an advocate of "small government statism" in such cases.

Social Security/Medicare is "big government statism" as it represents about 1/3rd of the US government based upon expenditures. My proposal is "small government statism" as it would reduce actual government involvement to less than 1/10th of what it is today. There's still the "safety net" so it doesn't completely eliminate any government involvement but it does significantly reduce it. That is the best I can do while still addressing the problem identified by the compelling argument.    

Of note I see the same problem when a person works all week long and still has to beg for food, financial assistance, or medical services because they don't receve enough compensation for their labor. Should a person really be required to sit on the corner begging with a tin cup after working all day long for someone else? We try to remove the stigma of having to sit on the corner with a tin cup but that's really what welfare assistance is regardless of whether it's by government or throught charity. The person is literally begging for assisntance if they fill out an application for SNAP benefits for example.

It is my argument that we should be working to address the problem of "beggers" being created by our economic system. When 20% of the workers in America are fundamentally forced to beg for survival there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

Jun 29, 2014 21:00:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Again, I am not fundamentally opposed to your plan to replace Social Security and Medicare. In fact, your plan looks pretty sound to me.

My only point of disagreement is your belief that it is "irresponsible" for employers to pay their employees less than a "living wage."  It is my view that employers should be naturally inclined to seek the greatest profit margin that is possible, within the law; and that this goes double for publicly owned companies, whose shareholders certainly will not be satisfied with just modest profits. 

Then you must accept that as a moral and compassionate society we can not let people be forced into the streets, go hungry, or go without medical services they require and so "society" must pick up the costs for those that don't earn enough from working to be able to fund these expenditures. Because we know that private charities can't even come close to fulfilling the need it becomes the responsibility of government to mitigate the effects of the poverty created by the low compensation that doesn't meet the expenditures necessary for the worker.

A moral and compassionate society is stuck picking up the tab (costs) of providing for those where their labor does not provide enough compensation so that the "capitalist" can make a profit. The "underpayments" generate the necessity for "welfare" assistance because people can't afford to live on the compensation they receive. We cannot morally allow people live as beggers on the streets, go without food, or go without health care services.

Your position fundamentally demands that a Welfare State must exist and a welfare state is "Big Government Statism" that I oppose.