Skip to comments.Sen. Tom Coburn: I'm Willing to Accept Tax Increases
Posted on 12/09/2012 1:17:09 PM PST by Orange1998
click here to read article
These “generational” arguments against SS/Medicare used to make my head explode. Now they just amuse me.
Let me say first, I don’t agree with SS, Medicare or Obamacare. None of this should have ever been done in the first place. But they were enacted..with forced participation. So if one pays into these programs by law, yes they should get the benefits.
Will any of these programs be repealed? Probably not. It really isn’t a matter of “what about me and mine”. It is a matter of misguided law. There has been reform equitable to all placed on the table in the past.. the legislators won’t touch it. I place a lot of the blame on media misinformation.
As far as the pay-in vs pay out meme..That is how these programs were sold to the public. Had they been handled correctly, there would not be a problem today. They weren’t. Medicare (and SS) is not welfare. It is an insurance policy. I didn’t apply for the policy, but I darn sure have to pay for it. Much like a private health care policy, the premiums paid seldom equal the cost of one catastrophic illness. Is Medicare rife with fraud..you bet. This should be addressed if the program continues to exist..which it will unless OCare kills it.
I think a lot of folks forget that noone “chose” to particpate in these programs. It was not a voluntary program...unlike today when people are forced to contribute. /s We aren’t talking about some Madoff scheme. We are talking about the Federal Government.
As far as “means testing”...the rich already are penalized for their wealth in Medicare. In what other industry would this be allowed? IMHO, if the tax was paid..they are entitled to the benefit. I don’t subscibe to the Barry Obama method of “spreading the wealth”. And, no, I’m not rich. My thoughts are made in the interest of fairness. If the wealthy can self-insure and provide for their own retirement, they should have the ability to opt out of either program.
As already stated on this thread..return my confiscated deductions with interest...and I’ll shut up and go away. I’ll take care of my kids and parents...you take care of yours.
Romney promised not to mess with the entitlements of our seniors.
Doesn't quite add up, unless you have a very loose definiation of "just now" or else your kids started college at 14 or so...In which case they clearly didn't inherit your IQ!
Thank you. I would venture a good guess that most “old people” ON THIS SITE would be happy to accept exactly what rhey paid in all their lives.
Listen, I know seeing your neighbor hauled off in the middle of the night for non-compliance, never to be seen again, can make even the most stalwart believer have his doubts, but where does THAT leave us NOW?
I’d be happy to pay for SS for current seniors if they would wind down the program before my time (I’m 50). There’s no money, the pols spent every dime so I do not expect anything back, nor do I propose to renege on current recipients or people about to retire. All I would ask in return is some favorable tax rules on my own retirement savings since I will have to make do with that.
I put 34 years into SS so far, but see my previous post. The program is doomed by demographics.
I’ll make you a deal.
If you are employed...tell your employer to take no federal deductions.
If you are self-employed...I’ll be interested to see how long not paying paying the required taxes lasts for you.
Being hauled off in “the middle of the night” could be kinder than dealing with the government in a court of law.
You give it a whirl...and let me know the outcome. :)
Not going to happen. The best you can (and should) hope for is that they give you a decent chance to fund your own retirement. If you close enough to retirement, then you should get what was promised. If not, then something less.
I think we need to clean house. Just let them all go. Might as well let the GOP die
I hear ya, Dave. Not sure it would work out like that. Income levels don’t know party distinction. Dems would stop any bill that fixes a different rate, credits, exclusions based on profession. Great idea. I just don’t see how it gets passed. But if you have specific ideas - send it to Ryan.
whatever they do they may as well extend the tax cuts on the 98% so it continues to be a Bush / Republican legacy and Obama isn’t able to claim it for himself next year. They don’t have the votes to do any more than that.
As I’ve said a bunch of times taxes are a distraction. The dems have the votes to pretty much do what they want & there is no way for the dems to tax their way out of this. We have a $16T debt and adding $1T+ per yr in add’l debt. We need to push for massive spending cuts and make that the focus on the debate.
It would help to start fresh. Too much corruption in the present set of politicians. It seems to take about 6 years, they either quit like they promise (one senate term or three house terms and out) or they stay and become part of the problem.
First, these are not ‘programs’, these are taxes. Means testing is just a way to screw over those that do well in life; which, to me, is worse than failing to pay out if one dies before collecting. But the Ponzi output is still the same.
Lastly, they are and were Unconstitutional, regardless of how they were begun. Sport, but you got screwed, you have no moral authority to indebt future generations just to ‘get what’s mine’
Well, I assume you skipped over my post 101.
We agree that these programs, taxes are unconstitutional. But it is what it is.
We also seem to agree against means testing.
I simply am not able to reconcile myself with the fact that our government has the ability to enforce a law and then renig. Perhaps you can. Truthfully, that money IS mine... Sport.
I have been looking at Panama or Costa Rica. It’s that 30% exit tax that’s stopping me.
“Id be happy to pay for SS for current seniors if they would wind down the program before my time (Im 50). Theres no money, the pols spent every dime so I do not expect anything back, nor do I propose to renege on current recipients or people about to retire. All I would ask in return is some favorable tax rules on my own retirement savings since I will have to make do with that.”
I think the people that “reneged” are the ones that chose to spend their retirement money (via the people they elected, collectively), so even them shouldn’t get a free ride.
But we’re past that point - as you can tell by the reactions to my postings, we WILL given EVERYONE every penny they think they deserve. The only question, again, is who should pay? My kids, or me and them a bit (before they retire). I vote for me and them...as I STILL don’t see why MY KIDS should be blamed for this mess.
It is for now. In the future the USGOV will 1) default, 2) inflate or 3) grow tax revenues or some combo. #3 is not looking good over the long run, even if we milk the rich that only works once. #2 means they will pay your $$ but you will have to lower your standard of living. #1 means cutting what we owe to China or cutting your benefits, probably both, as in everybody takes a haircut.
I agree. Just wind the whole thing down with general revenues while we still can.
“Where should the cuts come from? Before those who have been compelled to pay in (since this is not a voluntary system) all their working lives are forced to forego what they’ve been promised, I would like to see exactly what other groups will lose benefits.”
NOBODY WILL LOSE BENEFITS!!! Do you understand that? You have WON that battle - you should be happy. The ONLY thing I’m asking now is that TODAY’s workers pay for it - not my kids. There is absolutely no hope in convincing you guys that the people YOU voted into office, collectively, have already spent this country dry. My problem is that I have kids, and I would like to leave them some semblance of a country.
“A lot of the resentment is caused by the fact that non-citizens (exhibit A - Auntie Zeituni) who have paid exactly nothing into the system enter the U.S. and then spend the rest of their lives on the government dole, at the expense of working Americans. Will they be required to forego their “entitlements”? Not likely. And the people who have been the honest players and have done their part and followed the rules will take it in the shorts before the freeloaders such as this deadbeat dad are cut off.”
Like I said, EVERYONE will get a free ride, including you. My point is that taxes need to be high enough to pay for all you guys. Since you guys, older conservatives, are not willing to part with one penny of what you think is owed to you (even if it was spent twice over), the ONLY question left is who pays for you guys - me, or my kids (and later grand kids)...I would like it NOT to be my kids and later generations. That is the ONLY thing left to argue over.
“I understand. On a personal level I feel the same way. That is why I am here taking care of my mother.”
Good for you...the same was 4,930 years of human history - but now we expect people, many of whom have not yet been born, to do the same.
No doubt the entitlement programs need to be reformed in order to be sustained. I really don’t like the term “entitlement”. Welfare and medicaid is an unpaid for entitlement.
But would you agree that there are many departments that could be shut down in the interest of saving money?
Of course YOUR children will be impacted. Just as all our children are. It’s not just about you.
What is your idea to “fix it”?
For clarity's sake; we didn't start that. Also, for 4,930 years the choices were more straightforward and life was more brutal too.
Friend, I am under no illusion that what remains of my life will be easy or comfortable. Such a life, I know now, is worthless.
If yours is arranged such that it will, good for you.
never mind..I just saw your previous post.
And they say, well, we voted, and things didn't really go the way we wanted, so now all you suckers, even though it's pretty obvious voting won't do jack, keep coughing up the bread, and yeah, while you're at it, keep coming up with good non-violent ways to turn things around.
We'll be on the golf course.
“What is your idea to fix it?”
In a perfect world, I’d start by declaring that Social Security, Medicare, and others are WELFARE PROGRAMS, because there is no pot of money to draw from. I know people would like to think they paid into it, so it must be there - but it ain’t, and we all know that. If I have a 401k and my wife takes a loan out from it (with me also signing off), guess what - the MONEY IS GONE, and I am expected to pay it back - not my newly-hired coworkers who were kids when she (we) borrowed the money.
So once we get past the point of thinking there is some pot of money, the next step is to MEANS TEST. There is NO REASON why my kids should have to pay money to Bill Gates or (literally) millions of people like him that have plenty of money for retirement - saying that they should have to pay now is no different than saying they should have to pay Bill Gates when he was working and making big bucks. That, right there, will take care of some 10% of today’s cost.
Beyond that, you get into who should really pay for people that cannot otherwise take care of themselves. If they were kids, then the parents are expected to pay their way, particularly if the parents are making money. So why not flip that around and have the well-off kids help out a bit (as Tiger is doing)? If the older person needs help, track down his family and if they have resources, then they should pony-up.
If there are no kids, or no kids with means, then the state should step in and take care of these people.
If all that is done, we’d have a balanced budget tomorrow. Yes, there wouldn’t be as many Winnebego’s driving to Alaska every summer, and yes, there wouldn’t be nearly as many large houses with 2 old people left in them, but my kids would not be going broke, even before they get a chance to work.
Now, having said all that, I realize that I’m dreaming (but you did ask) - so the ONLY other option (aside from leaving my kids a bankrupt country) is to raise taxes, particularly on the middle class, as that is where the money is.
“For clarity’s sake; we didn’t start that. Also, for 4,930 years the choices were more straightforward and life was more brutal too. “
True, but does it matter who started it?
I don’t think that any of us are assured of an easy, comfortable life.
I don’t think that any of us are assured of an easy, comfortable life.
It matters to those who are now in no position to make any changes to provide for themselves.
What was the effective tax rate in 1880? 1830?
“It matters to those who are now in no position to make any changes to provide for themselves.”
I agree...that’s why I posted that I don’t want anyone thrown in the streets, I just want people who are closer to the seniors to pay their way, if they can.
“What was the effective tax rate in 1880? 1830?”
That doesn’t matter. The FACT is that when money is put away for retirement, then it needs to be protected and stay put. That didn’t happen, and my kids don’t feel they should be the ones stuck with having to pay for that stupidity.
Yep. But they will, one way or another- inflation or whatnot
This is what I have been looking for. Some solutions that recognize that the vice we are in crushes on both ends, young and old. I suspected that you were more reasonable than you were letting on. It did not go unnoticed that you didn't try to straw man or ad-hominem me into silence. I don't have a problem with the solutions you proposed.
I like that idea.
Thanks Tiger, I kind of suspected that you were being open-minded also. I see the age of older people living on their own as only a luxury that a very wealthy country can afford...and we had it, but then blew it (thanks to liberalism). We simply aren’t that wealthy anymore, so we are very likely to end up that way...I would just like to get there on our terms, rather than the on the terms of China or the IMF.
I see that now. You held back on that part of your view for a while. Good discussion. Reason says that it is neither right to enslave ‘our children’ nor to turn ‘our elders’ out in the street. Unfortunately it’s not going to be as easy to find reason in DC as it is on this thread.
If you think the increased revenue from Taxes will go to pay down
the debt, you are truly foolish. It will go where all our money goes...
to support spending programs. And that all.
So you believe that ss/medicare are welfare programs? Do you also believe that private insurance and annuities (for retirement) are as well? Both ss/med are paid for. They aren’t free.
As I have already said, I’m not rich by any stretch, why should the wealthy pay into a system and not reap the benefit? Should they also pay for private insurance..but be denied coverage because they have the bucks to cover their own health issues? Let them opt out, it’s only fair. And I am sure you want to be fair. If Bill Gates paid the premium, the benefit is his as much as ours.
You sound a little bit like a “share the wealth” kinda FRiend.
“Yep. But they will, one way or another- inflation or whatnot”
I think that we’re all seeing that. And it will get much, much, worse, once we hit the brick wall regarding borrowing.
When that day comes, then our 401K’s, IRAs, and Pensions become nationalized and turned into (hate to say it) means-tested annuities, with the masses determining just how much (if any money) we’ll be allowed to draw from those accounts. The actual cash in those accounts goes straight to the government.
There is already A LOT of talk about this now, and likely by the end of 2016, we’ll be there. So the money will be taken...just as you suspect. It happened in Argentina and Russia (twice there), and MUST happen here.
No, and I am no longer sure an easy comfortable life has done much for the state of my soul.
I think so too
It does not surprise anyone that knows the Republican Party, does it?
“So you believe that ss/medicare are welfare programs? Do you also believe that private insurance and annuities (for retirement) are as well? Both ss/med are paid for. They arent free.”
I would say that private insurance and annuities are NOT welfare programs if funds actually exist in them TODAY. But if the depositors were somehow able to borrow against them, and clean them out...then yes, any money they paid out would not be depositor money, they would, BY DEFINITION, be someone else’s money.
As far as SS and Medicare, give the account number with the $40T or so that should be there by now. You can’t because it has all been borrowed against. It was a deal with the devil, lower income tax rates in exchange for stealing from SS and Medicare, FOR DECADES. So no, the money is not there, it is long gone.
yes, I am sorry about that. It was not helpful.
“If you think the increased revenue from Taxes will go to pay down the debt, you are truly foolish. It will go where all our money goes...to support spending programs. And that all.”
No, actually the linkage between spending and revenues left the station with Obama. If they want a program, they will push for it, and the size of the deficit will have ZERO IMPACT. So yes, if we increase revenues, the money might get spent, but it would have been spent anyway - so we still come out ahead, with a smaller deficit than we would have otherwise had.
In other words, it’s time to PAY UP for the services that WE DEMAND from the government, with “we” being many, if not most, older FReepers.
Congress has no history reducing spending, only spending more and more.
All this may end up being a mute point, as a collapse will likey happen
before any real cuts are made in the future.
Decades and decades of grand bargains by both sides, past and present
gave brought us to the brink.