Discussion in 'Higher Learning' started by The Black Panther, Oct 26, 2017.
It is a problem that military spending is 57% of discretionary spending , tho.
I believe this makes them more problematic/concerning, not less...
Ok, this goes into what I was talking about above.
Thanks for the link.
I have to apologize @DEAD7 but I'm watching you breh because at times your line of thought seems left field.
He's not wrong, however SS is merely us getting money back that we set aside in its simplest form.
That's why it's mandatory spending.
From an ideological standpoint, yes.
We could potentially fix the issue with making them all mandatory and modifying the formulas to calculate their budgetary needs and growth; or simply remove any mandatory items. The latter again becomes a debate of ideology.
Hopefully this won't derail too much into discussing healthcare, but the distinction between mandatory and discretionary spending was one of the key aspects of healthcare reform many people missed.
Because such a large portion of our mandatory spending is allotted to healthcare, having an apparatus that could control costs and incentivize health care providers to keep prices low is crucial. The ACA was the first step of establishing that apparatus, but stupid people failed to see that.
People like @DEAD7 believe "choice" should take primacy, but honestly there's no point in pushing choice when there's nothing to control prices in a fragmented private market. :kanyebp:
State, Local Break Remains Sticking Point in House Tax Push
Social Security has a DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE you fukking idiot. It's not like military spending that is taken from gross tax revenue. If you had a real job you'd see that they deduct social security taxes automatically. That money is then put into a separate account from which current retirees/disabled are paid. This account has traditionally ran huge surpluses, until we decided to raid it to pay for other shyt. At some point in the next 20 years or so the amount of money going into the account will be lower than what goes out in retiree benefits. At that point all that would need to be done to stabilize it forever is increasing the amount of income subject to the tax.
Anyone who brings up social security as proof that we're overspending should be ignored as they very clearly have no idea what the fuk they're talking about.
Doesnt this shift the burden(at least in part) of paying current recipients(more than they put in) on todays workforce... who if I'm understanding whats going on(and I may not be) will be facing a negative rate of return when they retire?
Edit: found chart for what I was trying to ask
Until govt. decided to govt.
I expect this kind of short sighted irresponsibility from people, which is why I oppose federal programs like SS.
Why would you comment so definitively if as you just admitted you don't even understand how any of this works?
Are you like this in real life?
You know what would really blow your mind is that your anti immigration views actually make it more likely that we will need to institute huge tax increases in order to make sure that future retirees receive benefits commiserate with how much they've put into the system.
The dirty open secret (not necessarily among your people) is that one of the major reasons that Europe and the U.S. never seriously cracked down on immigration is that we need their money to shore up our safety nets. Our population growth is not high enough to support the huge SS costs that the baby boomer generation depend on.
Is this a yes to my question?
...and for the record i believe we should scrap SS all together.
But obviously that isnt gonna happen.
How would you do this, do you have a plan in mind or you will bring home a few extra bucks in your paycheck so it's up to you to save