SS & savings
 

Sorry, wrong month. We had the "the blue states subsidize the red states" discussion back in November. That circumstance hasn't changed since the last Civil War. When it does, call us.

Fuck Fuck Fuck
 

Your are missing the boat again.

Clearly, we ought to be producing more babies instead.

SS & savings
 

Not a lot of time at the moment, so a couple quick retorts.

I'm not talking about eliminating deferral, only reducing it. Assume earnings on a 401(k), instead of being tax free, are subject to a 5% tax. Will this discourage anyone's savings? It's a kind of AMT for the 401(k) addicts. And $2-3 million accounts really aren't that rare - I'll bet the majority of BIGLAW law firm partners over 60 have them. Max out for 40 years, that's what you get.

And, on taxes, different taxes have different impacts. Wage taxes discourage employment, consumption taxes discourage consumption. When you look at the international playing field, we tax wages more heavily than others and consumption less heavily, which is why I wasn't getting too upset about replacing wage tax with consumption tax. But I'm really more an income and wealth tax kind of guy.

A Modest Proposal
 

2. Part 2 of my "fuck the oldsters" plan: shift the healthcare subsidy out of late-stage radical intervention for the elderly and into preventative care for citizens with their lives still ahead of them. Repeal Medicare and instead provide G subsidized healthcare for everyone under 18 (or 21 or whatever).

This is, in my view, one of the better arguments for a single G-payor healthcare system: the CBA of healthcare will have to happen over all of society, and, while I'm not fool enough to believe it will result in rational rationing of care, it can't but improve. While I've no problem with rich old farts paying for whatever fool medical treatments they want, the idea that I am paying for it is intolerable. (This and society-wide risk spreading.)

Why the hell are we subsidizing cancer treatments for someone who's 70 but not someone who's 12 (or 45 for that matter, at the height of economic productivity and having others dependent on them)? Why the hell are we subsidizing bank-busting end-of-life support for someone who's 70 but not paying for adequate asthma treatment for 7 year olds so they can prevent long-term damage to their health, attend more school to become more productive members of society for the next 70+ years? Why are we (now - thanks W, you fucker) paying for the arthritis meds of that 70 year old, and his meds to treat the drug-induced diabetes caused by his arthritis meds, but not paying for life-saving drugs for children?

BR(because the system's fucked, duh)C

By the way, Wonk, this post makes you very sexy. Just thought I'd perk up your day! And, fwiw, if I win the lottery, your new ticker is still high on the list of my first purchases.

SS, Medicare & savings
 

Mr. Fox, come now, come now. You don't have to be so glum now.

Clinton did not reform Social Security. That is true. He did, however, put the federal government's finances in order by running surpluses and reducing the deficit dramatically, reducing the debt load that we will be paying in the future. Sadly, Bush has undone all this.

SS & savings
 

I don't like the idea of tiering benefits not because I think that rich people particularly need Social Security, but because ensuring that the middle class gets the same benefits as the poor is a way to make sure that the program retains political support in the future. See, e.g., welfare reform.

A Modest Proposal
 

I'm blushing, and it's not even the FB!!

SS & savings
 

401(k)s barely scratch the surface of tax-free and tax-advantaged savings vehicles, particularly for people who can call themselves "self-employed" (e.g., partners). They can put away amounts approaching six figures a year, tax-free (not just tax-deferred on the returns), plus huge amounts in a variety of plans where the returns are tax-deferred. Some of which have been rendered invulnerable because virtually every Senator or Rep owns one.

So, what you said, but much more so. Put differently, 2+.

But this will never happen under Bush -- anything that looks like a current tax increase is being rejected out-of-hand. Future tax increases (i.e., massive deficits) are okay, and as a near-40-y.o. I must express my appreciation to younger Repubs for footing that bill on my behalf.

A Modest Proposal
 

I have no problem with focusing on prevention, but I suspect that many of the innovations that have cause the average life span to rise from 47 years (at the time of the new deal) to 77 years (today's rate) would not have happpened if health care was directed as you suggest.

SS, Medicare & savings
 

You seem to easily forget that the GOP Congress played a part in this as well.

SS & savings
 

4 (2 + 2)

Agree that Social Security should be on budget. Clinton invested some effort in this, but no one had the political will after 2000 to try to stop the gross fiscal irresponsibility that Bush ushered in. The Bushies routinely lie with numbers,* and it's just too much work for a supine media to try to sort it all out.

* E.g., they keep referring to an (inflated) early prediction of last year's deficit as the target when they talk about halving that deficit, but that number is inflated by many, many billions of dollars.

Also inclined to agree that the government should not be investing in the market. It's not what the government does best. But I would concede on this as a part of a package to shore up SS.

A Modest Proposal
 

What gets me is I'm vapid- but I essentially made Wonk's post 2 months ago. I'm actually one of the few people who create opinion change here, because I don't do it as forced concepts.

And by the way, is GGG employed in a law firm or some legal aid society thing? I have never seen anyone so tax obsessed. If you take his solution to health care and add his solution to SS, I have no incentive to do anything. How about this instead- let the rich get rich- then once a year draw out names of 10% of the rich and take away everything. the remainder will have incentive to amass more- and the rich are optomistic so they'll keep thinking there is a reason to carry on.

Strange Bedfellows
 

SS & savings
 

so you do understand that a number true at one point in time is menaingless for a changing number?

SS & savings
 

We may need to talk. I haven't found those tax-free vehicles yet.

A Modest Proposal
 

Old people are people, too, and I think helping them live longer is a good idea. At the same time, resources are finite, and we can't do everything. People object to rationing health care, but health care is rationed now, just in a half-assed, decentralized way. As always, RT has my proxy on this issue, and I'm hoping she'll come along and say something interesting about it.

A falling birth rate is a problem in all industrialized countries, ours less so than most of Europe because we have more immigration. (There was a terrifying story in the New Yorker a few months ago about the coming decline in Russia's population, and the problems we can expect as a result.) What we need is government subsidies for sex.

Part of this problem, too, is that old people vote, and young people don't.

SS & savings
 

Take a look at the WSJ today - there is an editorial from the Cato Institute that takes Bush's numbers/budget to task.

I assume you mean that the government should not be directing investments in the market, right? I don't think anyone is proposing that.

SS & savings
 

I understand you better when you post in English.

SS & savings
 

FWIW, Congress/Admin did make the nonqualified plan arena less attractive with the legislation passed at the end of last year. I generally feel like whacking executives across the face with a meat tenderizing and screaming repeatedly, JUST PUT SOME OF YOUR COMP IN AN INVESTMENT ACCOUNT!!!! TAX-PREFERRED SAVINGS IS NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT!!!!!! but, whatever. I guess I can just be happy that they can't play with it like it's a savings account (holding money they don't have to pay tax on until they decide to) anymore.

A Modest Proposal
 

2.

And, also, renewed immigration. Open up those borders.

A Modest Proposal
 

Mmmmm, sex. But subsidized or not, I'm not making any babies.

Strange Bedfellows
 

I don't know much about Columbia, and wouldn't be surprised if it lacks a diversity of views on this issue. But trashing a dead man doesn't seem like a very good way of making this case. Typical Dershowitz.

A Modest Proposal
 

Instead of government spending, what we really should do is outlaw birth control. My bet is we'll get more babies without having to further incentivize sex.

And, to Wonk's point, the AIDs deaths will lessen the retirement problem (but they will screw up Medicaid, won't they?).

SS & savings
 

We may need to talk to the IRS. You can do a defined benefit plan and max out defined contribution plan contributions (like $45k I think; obviously I did not work on communications at the end of last year!!), but for partners in a law firm there's not really the option of nonqualified comp because of the way partnership tax works. So generally the other options are stuff that is sometimes known by the term of art "tax fraud."

Strange Bedfellows
 

Does anyone think Dershowitz actually helps his cause?

SS & savings
 

Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Club's source http://www.nysun.com/article/8865


there have been complaints for awhile about Jews being ridiculed by Pro-pali profs at Columbia. Dershkowitz is "helping" his cause because he's not trying to change the pro-pali minds, he's trying to highlight the problem to the general public. The public recognizes that ignoring this nonsense is maybe not a good idea.

SS & savings
 

When I tell Ty he's being dense because he doesn't understand the math, but wishes to pretend he does, and you do this----- it's like when punky little kids make fun of someone speaking a foreign language. They think its okay, because they don't understand what the person is saying, and since they don't understand it must be stupid- to them le Français des rois is gibberish- that kid is you.

Strange Bedfellows
 

My only point is that even if Dershowitz is right about all that, trashing Said probably is counterproductive.

SS & savings
 

I'll give you benefit the doubt, and assume I didn't explain myself well. Early last year, the Administration issued a prediction that the deficit would be, say, $580 billion. (I don't recall the exact numbers.) At the time, people pointed out that the prediction was unrealistically high. As they said, the actual number came in lower -- say, $420 billion. But the Administration continues to talk as if the deficit actually was what they predicted. So their ostensible target for halving the deficit is $290 billion, not $210 billion. The math is very simple. Even you should be able to follow it.

A Modest Proposal
 

I'll be dropping off the babies at your house, honey.

Or, more realistically, getting a black-market tube-tying.

SS & savings
 

The math point goes back to % over 65 thing. I haven't read any of this ss crap other than GGG's new taxes

Strange Bedfellows
 

There is some diversity of opinion at Columbia. There is the "Israel is engaged in genocide" opinion, and there is the "criticism of Israel or sympathy for Palistinians is antisemitism" opinion. Everyone else just keeps their head down to avoid being hit with stray invective.

Dershowitz is probably harming his cause with people who actually are familiar with Said, but to most of the public, the combination of the terms "arab" "academic" "new york city" and "university" means that he was obviously an amoral, socialist, wild-eyed, anti-American corrupter-of-youth, and Dershowitz is just pointing out the obvious.

SS & savings
 

Well, if you've convinced yourself, that's something.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Uh-oh.

Alan Dershowitz is a liberal, therefore these Columbia profs speak for him. Does not compute, does not compute. Call in Slave.

SS & savings
 

Send me a PM.

SS & savings
 

I'm not inclined to believe you over the fleet of lawyers and tax advisers who've reviewed our various plans.

And other vehicles I was referring to are things like 529 plans.

Strange Bedfellows
 

Are you my internet stalker?

Please educate me on the last time 1 liberal criticized another. I can't recall this happening recently.

SS & savings
 

2

Mideast Peace?