Monday, September 6, 2010

Social Security SOLVED

Since cutting taxes apparently increases revenue, according to the GOP, I have the simple solution to our Social Security funding crises - we cut the social security tax. Since cutting increases revenue, we should maximize this by cutting it from what it is now (what, 7.5% or something like that) to 0.1%. That should solve the crises forever - after all, cutting taxes by like 99% we should see revenue collected increase by 99%, right?

But we should write into that law a failsafe - that if the revenue actually does not go up, we cover any shortfall with an increase in the capital gains tax sufficient to cover it - no matter how high it may need to be. The GOP should, of course, agree to this immediately, because, after all, if tax cuts increase revenue, this failsafe would never actually need to kick in, right?


The Barefoot Bum said...


Of course the concern with the financial integrity of social security is utterly, completely, absolutely, and totally insincere and disingenuous. You can no more have an honest, rational discussion with a modern conservative than you can with a Christian. It's not that they're mistaken or uninformed: they don't care about rationality or factual truth.

The truth is that anyone who advocates cutting social security is arguing for retired, disabled and chronically ill people to consume less. Given that the social security benefit by itself affords little more than bare survival, they are essentially arguing that we should allow these people to starve. If you're neither productive nor socially privileged, it's a pure waste to let you eat enough to live.

DBB said...

Yes - the elderly lived in abject poverty before there was Social Security - old people scrounging for scraps in the garbage and in the streets. That's what the GOP is really in favor of here. They cover it up by saying that somehow private charities would cover it - but the simple fact is, before there was Social Security or any sort of government safety net, private charity did NOT cover it - not even close. But they aren't interested in facts or reason.

So you are correct - it is depressing, really. There is no honest or rational discussion with "conservatives" - not with those that are in power - they aren't interested in it and they know they don't need to have it to get their followers to follow them.

It is depressing and enough for one to want to give up entirely - especially after seeing how Obama has done basically nothing to fight them. He's rolled over and played dead, like a good Democrat.

BellsforStacy said...

Okay what conservative anywhere is saying cut SS benefits? Really?

There is a SS crisis that needs to be solved. People are living far, far longer than ever before and that trend is just going to increase. I advocate raising the retirement age by 2 years. But that's about as far as I go.

It would also help if the feds didn't SPEND all of the SS money on things OTHER THAN SS.

But, as a 30 year old DBB, are you planning on having SS when you are older? Because most in my age bracket are saving their own money for retirement, not expecting SS to pay much if any, of the bills.

DBB said...

I have cynically thought there will be no SS when I get to the appropriate age, but the reality is, given the nature of what SS is, it can never "go bankrupt" and there will always be SS benefits. It is just a question of how they will be paid for and how much they will be.

And the point of my post was to point out the absurdity of the notion that cutting taxes increases tax revenues, something demonstratably false, as the Bush tax cuts are a huge portion of the current budget deficit, something we just extended and made worse.