Darnold lost $71k for winning the Superbowl?

[badgervike]

I agree that it isn't sustainable,  but how do you fix SS/Pensions/Retirement  for people that have worked for years counting on that as part or all of their income in their post working years?  Those are damn tough areas to focus on.   Same with other entitlements,  unfortunately we have created generations of people that have not prepared themselves to suddenly having to take care of themselves financially,  if we were to slash those expenses as some suggest I think we would see cities burn and turn into bigger crime zones than they already are as people would be come even more desperate.  There are no real easy answers,  but I've said it for years,  we all are going to need to bleed a little if this is ever going to get resolved.  Higher taxes for earners,  and incremental social program cuts, as well as belt tightening for other gov't areas like defense,  but of course they always take their budget cuts out on the working soldiers and their families and not where the cuts should likely come from.

I met a young guy running for office from my district this weekend,  we talked about a lot of areas, but one we spent time on was school lunches,  he said despite being fiscally conservative,  he did think school lunch programs should be free for all,  followed up with no kids should  go hungry.  I told him that it is very very unlikely that kids are going hungry,  most school districts have a policy that kids that dont have lunch can get a free lunch,  it might just not be what all the others are getting served.  He thought that was to shameful,  I said I agreed,  its sad that the kids get hurt,  but that schools already make countless attempts to get the parents to fill out the federal forms for free/reduced lunches,  but they often never hear back from the parents,  I told him instead of putting that burden on the already tapped education system,  how about coming up with a way to make those negligent parents legally bound to either fill out the forms or face legal troubles if they arent paying for their kids lunches. ( seems like a social services issue to me )

this will likely need to get relocated,  but since we are keeping it pretty neutral thus far it can ride,  if it turns a little to the partisan blame game its gone though. ( which it shouldnt as neither party should try and point a finger on our govt financial issues.)

The hard core reality is that you'll likely have to raise the age for SS to younger people much as we did when it was raised from Age 65 to age 67.  When SS was enacted, the age to collect was 62 and average life expectancy was 63.5 years old...a difference of 1.5 years.  The age expectancy is now 79 years and climbing..and the age of full SS is 67...a difference of 12.5 years.  That's a big, big difference.  

You also likely need to increase contribution percentages for younger payees to cover that difference. 

Also, should richer retirees really collect social security?

With declining birthrates and the baby boomers coming of age, this needs to be addressed.  Politicians are cowards, however.  Any changes to SS...even if it's just for younger participants...is met with a chorus of politicians choosing to "kill Grandma".

[BigAl99]

Raise the contribution ceiling from 184 k to 250, and leave the funds alone.  What's been payed in has been appropriated for other uses for years, remember the whole "lockbox" kerfuffle of the 90s?

[JimmyinSD]

how many people over the age of 40 but under 60 would take a 1 time payout from SS if you were given your lifetime contributions now, tax free, and allowed to put the whole chunk into a ROTH, but in return you are no longer eligible for social security?

[Waterboy]

I'm betting your targeted cuts are met with a lot of opposition from those that dont think like you.  And therein lies the problem.

The only way we get back to fiscal sanity is to do things to change entitlements.  They eat up around 60% of our money and that is only likely to go higher.  The day that the govt was allowed to raid Social Security to fund other gimmees, we were screwed.  

The hypocrisy of many Americans is easy to see bleeding through this site.  People bragging about their vacations but then talking about how Darnold should lose money to do his job. They like to draw the line of who should pay more just comfortably enough above their own income levels so that they aren't affected.   The top 10% of earners pay roughly 75% of federal income taxes.  The top 1% pay 40%.   The top 20% pay 85%.  I would claim that is somewhat unfair proportionally already.  But, it's really fun and easy to just tax the rich, as long as you're not the one being defined as rich.  lol

The country would be much better off with the proposals I made, but I know until there's no other alternatives, that politicians will kick the can down the road and that a certain constituency of voters will actually believe taxing the shit out of the rich is the total answer. lol

[JimmyinSD]

The only way we get back to fiscal sanity is to do things to change entitlements.  They eat up around 60% of our money and that is only likely to go higher.  The day that the govt was allowed to raid Social Security to fund other gimmees, we were screwed.  

The hypocrisy of many Americans is easy to see bleeding through this site.  People bragging about their vacations but then talking about how Darnold should lose money to do his job. They like to draw the line of who should pay more just comfortably enough above their own income levels so that they aren't affected.   The top 10% of earners pay roughly 75% of federal income taxes.  The top 1% pay 40%.   The top 20% pay 85%.  I would claim that is somewhat unfair proportionally already.  But, it's really fun and easy to just tax the rich, as long as you're not the one being defined as rich.  lol

The country would be much better off with the proposals I made, but I know until there's no other alternatives, that politicians will kick the can down the road and that a certain constituency of voters will actually believe taxing the shit out of the rich is the total answer. lol

if you are too mean to the kid with the ball,  you wont have a game because he will simply take his ball and go home or at least to a different playground.  some states are learning this,  some already know it,  but I think in the next 20 years its going to be very very evident that "tax the rich" is typically not a good plan.

[JimmyinSD]

The only way we get back to fiscal sanity is to do things to change entitlements.  They eat up around 60% of our money and that is only likely to go higher.  The day that the govt was allowed to raid Social Security to fund other gimmees, we were screwed.  

The hypocrisy of many Americans is easy to see bleeding through this site.  People bragging about their vacations but then talking about how Darnold should lose money to do his job. They like to draw the line of who should pay more just comfortably enough above their own income levels so that they aren't affected.   The top 10% of earners pay roughly 75% of federal income taxes.  The top 1% pay 40%.   The top 20% pay 85%.  I would claim that is somewhat unfair proportionally already.  But, it's really fun and easy to just tax the rich, as long as you're not the one being defined as rich.  lol

The country would be much better off with the proposals I made, but I know until there's no other alternatives, that politicians will kick the can down the road and that a certain constituency of voters will actually believe taxing the shit out of the rich is the total answer. lol

how do you define "entitlements", social security and medicaid? and how did you come up with 60% of our national budget?

[JimmyinSD]

Raise the contribution ceiling from 184 k to 250, and leave the funds alone.  What's been payed in has been appropriated for other uses for years, remember the whole "lockbox" kerfuffle of the 90s?

isnt that just an income tax increase for those people in that group since the ceiling is supposed to be based on expected lifetime receipts from SS and those people wont likely ever see that money back?  if we are going to raise the limit,  then get rid of the ceiling all together so everyone gets to help refill the pot regardless of income,  i have to think that additional tax will hurt some more than others,  but if we are to play with SS,  I would push for a constitutional amendment that makes SS other similar funds off limits to using for other purposes.  I know its all one check book,  but it doesnt seem to get handled that way to often.