Why are all men created equal except when I make 10 times as much as you but have to pay 15 times as much as you to the government? I’m willing to certainly except that there is a lower bound where you shouldn’t have to pay anything as a reverse income tax but…

Finally – back on topic – one of the major concerns I have with the doom/gloom version of Social Security/Medicare concerns is that I think the GDP growth numbers used are understated. If we grow the economy around 4% real GDP growth, we’ll never have a shortfall and the demographic bubble will pass. That ignores that life expectancy may not increase linearly but start increasing exponentially…

-Gene

The result of having to save 15% of my income to a 401k, on top of the 12% in SS that is already taken from me, is preventing me from improving my kids’ lives. We can’t afford to live in the neighborhoods with good schools, and as a result, can’t afford to send them to even a non-elite private school that will give them a better start than I ever had. Because of the cost of living in this area, a 6-figure income allows you to barely break even and as a bonus, I get to live within a half-mile of high-crime slums.

I’ve maintained for a long time now that the Feds can keep every dime they swindeled from me in SS taxes if they allow me to opt out from this point on. I’ll never lay claim to it and my kids can now have a property interest in my retirement savings. I’d call that a fair deal.

The way we fund the government is purely political. The federal income tax allows politicians to maintain power over the general population. The founding fathers, which so many bloggers are happy to refer to, intended that the federal government be funded through tariffs which may be thought of as sort of sales taxes.

So, in keeping with the intent of our founding fathers, I think a national sales tax would be the best way of funding ALL government spending, including SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. The poor (either by circumstances or bad planning) would still be taken care of. I think the best way to do this is by adopting the Fair Tax Act and repealing the 16th admendment. Check it out.

The current Social security System can’t be fixed. Nor can Medicare and Medicaid, which dwarf the SS system. The SS system will always remain broken and on the verge of collapse. It is a rob Peter to pay Paul pyramid scheme and as such should be illegal (for the federal government as it is for Joe citizen). Politicians have stolen money from the system with no intent on repaying it. How could they repay except to raise taxes?

Find another Ghawar (no one has, since 1948), and the oil crunch recedes another two years. Lower the unemployment projection by half a percent or so, or raise the retirement age two more years, and SS trust fund depletion recedes past the end of the century.

I don’t agree with Coyote about the more fortunate being jettisoned if and when social security benefits are “cut”. I expect any “cuts” to be across the board, with the poor elderly bearing the highest relative cost. I have a hard time envisioning those with the greatest ability and willingness to help fund the massive AARP/progressive political movement being thrown under the bus. And its advocates know damn well that social security’s popularity is based largely on the fact that the number of people receiving checks is more or less maximized.

As an aside, starvation seems to have become a very minor issue in America today. Maybe that fortunate condition is due to transfer payments, but it seems that our market economy is producing ample food for just about everyone. OTOH, I don’t expect the imagery of the potential famine among the elderly to go away any time soon.

I liken it to the conception that people used to have (and many still have) about praising Jesus. “If it’s the right thing to do, why not have a law?” Because, as Jefferson pointed out, threatening sanctions against unbelievers taints everyone’s religion. If your neighbor sings in church, is it an expression of piety or fear? If there’s a law, one can’t know. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was their realization that laws of religion potentially subject all religious expression to question. They saw religious freedom as perfecting their ability to express their beliefs.

A similar argument attaches to “giving back” by way of taxation. Sure, most people don’t want to see the poor, especially the elderly poor, suffering. But as it stands now, no one can say that we take care of our poor because of “national compassion” when the threat of violence stands right behind that “compassion.” One can argue whether or not our poor would be worse off without transfer payments (I happen to believe they wouldn’t be), but one cannot call government transfer payments “giving back” since there is not choice about the “giving,” even if much of it may have otherwise been freely given absent coercion.

Coyote is absolutely correct in his belief that the wealthy have a major target on their back, especially those of us who are still relatively young and with increasing incomes. We will get shafted, big time.

Further, the so-called “wealthy” receive next to nothing for their efforts. The Tax Foundation states:

“Overall, we find that America’s lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America’s highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.”

[http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/2286.html]

I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to pay for your retirement, especially if you were (and are) irresponsible with your money.