tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025550.post110723016012642015..comments2023-07-20T04:06:13.696-04:00Comments on De Tocqueville Boulevard: Responding to a commenterCharles Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02625607607098510780noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025550.post-1107353509140248232005-02-02T09:11:00.000-05:002005-02-02T09:11:00.000-05:00Here's my problem. If there's no "account" then ho...Here's my problem. If there's no "account" then how can the money be said to be anywhere? If we're taking in more than we're spending, where is the excess going? One may be guarunteed to recieve 20 back for 20 taken, but that's nothing more than the government's promise...an IOU. They may say they're not allowed to spend it, but if they don't have it somewhere, then it's probably been spent.<br /><br />I'm well aware of FICA and have been for some time. I was referring to the budget, not the source of the budget. If FICA tax is inviolate, it shouldn't be counted as part of the federal budget, but it is. This leads me to doubt.<br /><br />You mentioned a philosophical impasse, and I fear you are right. One thing I would like to underline. You said that, in your understanding, "taxes are the price of living in a free society." As you might expect, I don't agree. Taxes are the price of having any government whatsoever. A king taxes as vociferously as the Dept. of the Treasury. The king's justification for this was that all land belonged to him; you were just using it. In a free society, we know that all government, and hence all of government's functions, spring from the people (Jefferson's line about "with the consent of the governed."). In a free society, government is the people's employee, commanded to perform certain functions. That it may do this, we give it money. It IS your money, and it IS my money; we give it to the government in exchange for services. If the service becomes poor or antiquated, it is our right and obligation to change the service. To be otherwise makes us nothing more than the serfs of a (temporarily) benevolent, elected king.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05580109076500721062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025550.post-1107313000864190632005-02-01T21:56:00.000-05:002005-02-01T21:56:00.000-05:00You are correct- the Trust Fund is not a "trust fu...You are correct- the Trust Fund is not a "trust fund" in the sense that we usually think of the term. There is no fund manager or bank account holding the money. However, it is a pile of money which by law may not be used for general purposes. Moreover, there are Trustees who invest the Social Security Trust Fund monies, but by law the investment is limited to government bonds. In effect, the left pocket is lending the right pocket money. In other words, Congress has basically created an accounting trick to fund general expenditures out of the dedicated funds.<br /><br />However, you are not correct that Social Security is funded via the same taxation collected by the IRS. Social Security is funded via FICA withholding, while general taxation is collected via a different withholding line- look at your paycheck stub, I can't remember what it is called. FICA goes directly to SSA- do not pass go, collect your $200 at the age of 65. All of the projections for Social Security's viability consider only FICA funding. General taxation is not considered.<br /><br />I disagree with you that Social Security is "nothing more than a vast wealth transference device." The objective is for a person to get out of the system more or less what he paid into it, adjusted for inflation. Ideally, if a taxpayer pays $20K into the system, he should get $20K (in constant dollars) out. No transference there, just deferral.<br /><br />You are also right to note that political motivation is not necessarily indicative of bad faith. Since I do criminal defense law for a living, I know very well that motive is not proof. Motive, however, is relevant to the extent that it reveals bias. And here, I smell a rat. True, I am predisposed at this point to doubt anything the White House says- if they held a press conference to announce that the sky is blue, I'd look up just to make sure. The GOP historically has been frindly to the financial sector and inimical to public welfare spending- it just so happens that this plan is both a handout to the financial sector AND trims back a major federal program.<br /><br />Here is where we reach impasse- which is okay, an issue this big and this complicated is something on which reasonable people can disagree. However, you wrote, "We cannot keep creating more and more expensive, while less and less effective, government mandates, like SocSec and Medicare. In the end, they threaten to devour wealth, rather than create it." You also wrote, "And if $1000 a year isn't enough, I'll take more. I do believe it's my money to start with." <br /><br />This is a fundamental difference on which debate is meaningless- your basic assumptions (the goal is to create wealth; it's my money to start with) are extremely different from my basic assummptions (the goal is not to create wealth, the goal is to ensure susbsistence; it's NOT my money, taxes are the price of living in a free society). The distinction is paradigmatic- we just see situation differently- which does not necessarily mean that either of us is wrong.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is that this is extraordinarily complicated, and the response proposed by the President is overreaching and radical. The benefits do not outweigh the costs, and the system is not in the kind of immediate danger that requires a radical solution. It seems to me that privatizing the system is unnecessarily risky and a gift to Republican benefactors.Charles Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02625607607098510780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9025550.post-1107288875157309522005-02-01T15:14:00.000-05:002005-02-01T15:14:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the Trust Fund...I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the Trust Fund actually exists. As I'm given to understand it, it consists of the Federal Government writing IOU's to itself, promising to pay when payment is demanded. If I am wrong in this, I would like to see the account that holds the excess Social Security money. Every 1040 I've ever looked at puts Social Security money and other money in the same pool of income and outlays.<br /><br />I agree that the President's plan will not solve Social Security all by itself. To dodge this bullet, we are going to have to do a number of things; raising the retirement age and perhaps even raising the payroll tax among them (but hopefull not the latter, it kills the economy. Perhaps this is why the President wishes to tackle tax reform at the same time). <br /><br />But we are going to need to move away from the sytem as currently constituted. We can't keep raising the retirement age forever; as it is, many Americans (blacks especially) never live to see their checks. As organized, SocSec is nothing more than a vast wealth transferrence device. It should not be confused with a pension plan. We cannot keep creating more and more expensive, while less and less effective, government mandates, like SocSec and Medicare. In the end, they threaten to devour wealth, rather than create it.<br /><br />I take your point that the White House is being political. Attacking a bulwark of one's opponents is pretty much standard operating procedure. What's more, I don't see that the fact that they stand to gain politically automatically means that they are arguing in bad faith. FDR's legacy, such as it is, belongs to the last century. It could stand rethinking, rather than dogmatizing. It is becoming increasingly evident that centralization of economic forces is unsustainable, long-term. The pension states in Europe are about to run into similar problems. We need new ideas. <br /><br />And if $1000 a year isn't enough, I'll take more. I do believe it's my money to start with.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05580109076500721062noreply@blogger.com