A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
In theory that is true but in practice I'm not certain. I believe that a significant number of people do not take full advantage of 401ks even now -- either because they are ignorant, or because they feel they can't afford it.

It is very possible that the most significant effect of expanding 401k options will be that people who already save a lot of money will shift those savings from taxable to tax-advantaged accounts. If someone is not using their 401k now, or not putting away the full amount, how will raising the limit change their behavior?

The net result of savings being shifted would be no increase in the savings rate, but a decrease in tax revenues. The decrease in tax revenues, in turn, results in higher deficits, and that in turn only makes the long-term problems facing SS more serious.

There is actually a middle path. Make SS a true welfare program, need-tested, and unsupported by a separate tax system. At the same time, engae in a major public relations effort to get people to take the money that used to be withheld for SS and instead put it into a 401(k). If people have the opportunity to put money they are used to not receiving into a retirement account, they may be more likely to save it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But why do you care about wealth unless it's spent? If John D. Rockefeller has gold bars up the wazoo in Switzerland, what does it matter? When he decides to spend them, go ahead and tax them. The fundamental question is why earning income, generally a sign of productivity, is an event we should be taxing, as opposed to consumption, which by definition consumes resources, taking them away from others, is not such an event.

When do we get to talk about taxing wealth?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When do we get to talk about taxing wealth?

Feel free to start it by stating the case for it.

I'll remind you that the idea wasn't one of George III's best received in the colonies.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But why do you care about wealth unless it's spent? If John D. Rockefeller has gold bars up the wazoo in Switzerland, what does it matter? When he decides to spend them, go ahead and tax them. The fundamental question is why earning income, generally a sign of productivity, is an event we should be taxing, as opposed to consumption, which by definition consumes resources, taking them away from others, is not such an event.

Because the tax system is supposed to pay for support of the system that makes productivity possible. It's part of the grease on the wheels of economic progress. That's reason number 1.

Because a tax dollar is worth more to the G today than it is to them in 20 years. From a tax policy perspective, that's the appropriate view to take. Reason number 2.

Because Mrs. Petroski, a single mother of two in Sandusky, Ohio, who can't afdford to buy a pair of gold-filled earrings, let alone gold bars, shouldn't have to bear a greater portion of the public burden than Mr. Rockefeller. Reason number three.

Because consumption is self-limiting. One can only buy so many gold-plated toilet seats. Therefore, your tax base becomes fixed, absent extraordinary population growth. Consequently, an increase in demand for public services, or in the cost of providing them, forces an increase in the rate at which consumption is taxed. The people whose entire income is of necessity consumed get squeezed while those who have the ability to save more and reduce spending avoid the increase in tax burden. Reason number four.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Feel free to start it by stating the case for it.

I'll remind you that the idea wasn't one of George III's best received in the colonies.

Actually, the Revolution was started over consumption taxes. Remember the Boston Tea Party?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Remember the Boston Tea Party?

(Pssst. He's not as old as you.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There is actually a middle path. Make SS a true welfare program, need-tested, and unsupported by a separate tax system.

so it would be free, like GGG's health plan?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Fair points, but I'm not really trying to address the precise question of saving SS through increasing 401ks. That said, the SS deficits will almost certainly have to be funded through ordinary income tax revenues, if for no other reason than to pay the IOUs. Good timing if retirees are wihdrawing from their 401ks

As for passing along--the taxes get paid eventually. First, IRAs have mandatory withdrawals (as do 401ks, no?), so you have to pay the taxes at 70+. If you pass to the kids, they still have to withdraw. And if you convert to a Roth in the meantime, you have to pay taxes then. All they provide for is tax deferral, not tax avoidance.

I was responding to your comment "It increases future tax revenues, however, fortuitously at the time that SS will be in most dire straits" which does seem to be you addressing the question of savings SS through increasing 401ks.

My point about passing down to the kiddies was not in the context of the current system, it was in the context of your idealized consumption tax-based system. If there's only a consumption tax, the withdrawals wouldn't be taxed unless spent. But, in case you were wondering, there are mandatory annual withdrawals for 401(k)s (and other emploeyr plans) at the later of when you terminate or reach age 70.5. And distributions under the current system are taxable if they go to non-spousal beneficiaries.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let everyone create "Consumption Savings Accounts" Any contribution is deductible against income--no limits on contribution amounts. Any withdrawal is reported as income in the year it is made. Tax tables like they are now. "Net income" * applicable rate=tax owed.

So, basically, income minus net amount saved is what you are taxed on, which is essentially what I said. So, your answer really is, yes, fringe, that is how I see it working.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, the Revolution was started over consumption taxes. Remember the Boston Tea Party?

Well, if we want to be completely accurate, it was the lack of taxes on certain teas. But really, you're kind of ignoring the ". . . without representation part."

on your previous:

1) It also pays for the commercial wealth we have. I don't see a principled difference here.

2) Right, but are two tax dollars in 20 years worth more (or 4). You're forgetting that savings will grow and when used for consumption be taxed on the full amount.

3) I don't see how that's happening. Each is paying in proportion to their consumption, and, if you make it progressive, the rich still get soaked, at least if they want to gold-plate their Hummer toilet seats.

4) Again, you're always going to be able to squeeze more out of the rich. But why the obsession with squeezing out taxes? What happened to the idea of government for the people? You talk like the first priority should be funding government--I think the opposite: how to we reduce government to the minimum necessary. Hiding taxes by hitting up the rich is one of the most disingenuous solutions. The poor, who derive the greatest benefit from the social services offered by gov't should actually see what it means to pay for them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So, your answer really is, yes, fringe, that is how I see it working.

Evidently you need to work on your articulation.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
Are you reading Hume to be claiming that FDR wanted qualified accounts to completely supplant SS? If you are, then I would agree with you that Hume would be wrong.

But I don't read him that way. What I took from his comments was that FDR liked the idea of the additional, investment-driven private accounts being a part of the mix. FDR thought they should eventually be an important component to the whole scheme. I took that as a measure of FDR's prescience - he contemplated qualified accounts way back then.

Addendum:

Here's what Hume says in his first paragraph:

"Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial (search) today to invoke the image of FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security (search) proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it."

"Planned to include . . . " Like, to make them a part of the whole plan. Not to replace the plan. Clearly, Hume was saying what I thought he was saying.

[Someone's Evil Twin]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so it would be free, like GGG's health plan?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc


[confidential to Hank]If you don't post such mickey mouse things so often, I wouldn't have to do this log out/log in thing so much.[/confidential to Hank]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Someone's Evil Twin
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc


[confidential to Hank]If you don't post such mickey mouse things so often, I wouldn't have to do this log out/log in thing so much.[/confidential to Hank]

the sock is of course sad, and I am mostly troubled re. why someone would go to this effort. However, the avater I find offensive- how does that not violate the not copying people rule?

It is clear copyright infringement of my original Hank Washington.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who's drinking the Kool-Aid? I actually bothered to read about what FDR said, unlike you and bilmore. What's your excuse?

Do you think Hume read all of that and understood it, before he made his argument? Who knows? Maybe you're right and he's a gawdawful f-ing liar. But who cares?

My excuse would be that I have things to do other than read carefully and/or post pages of blogs on such critical issues as what, precisely, FDR said about SS in the 1930s and how some conservative news anchor engaged in some horrendous misrepresentation thereof for partisan purposes.

I consider those other things to be better uses of my time. However, these priorities mean than I am vulnerable in debates over the details.

Honest to God, though. This strikes me as just about as important and meaningful as Club's assault on Howard Dean. When you go full bore on every little thing you lose some credibility. That's why I think bloggers are generally as bad as talk radio (sports and otherwise). They have so much dead air/space to fill that they must yammer on and on about every little thing and magnify every anthill into Mt. Everest for about three days until it disappears and the next thing comes along.

Hank has probably been so quiet because he's letting us fight amongst ourselves. Let's remember and apply Reagan's 11th Commandment in reverse and let it go. I'll go back to biting my tongue.

S_A_M