Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA
Date: 13 May 2024 23:19:35 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <v1u767$ei8$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <v1loc6$1gcqh$2@dont-email.me> <215v3jtiqmpotenio4dsg7rloel255tdnr@4ax.com> <d9998d1d-c8cc-aef2-5adc-bedf35217644@example.net> <XoS%N.86398$Fmd1.65250@fx13.iad>
Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="1812"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 3144

Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
>perhaps before WW2.    The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
>began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
>part to the current deficits.

Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.

However, it should be pointed out that although reductions in tax rates
were not combined with increases in productivity like Mr. Reagan
predicted and this has increased the deficit a lot... the actual source of
much of that initial deficit comes from overspending on the War on Vietnam.

>The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
>the social security system was created.

The Social Security system is supposed to be kept independent from the 
general budget and so Social Security witholding isn't supposed to be
a tax.  Unfortunately due to some fiddling with the budget in the eighties,
it has become that way.  Fixing this should be a priority, and without
fixing it, it can be hard to figure out what the real deficit is.

>The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
>even worth responding.

I dunno.  I got shot on the street minding my own business.  Mind you, it 
was by a police officer, so that might not be quite what the original
poster was thinking.

>If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
>used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
>support future retirements without any modifications.

Bingo.

>The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
>in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
>system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
>completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
>mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
>without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

Yes.  The Social Security program was intended to be a safety net
in order to cover people who fell between the cracks.  It was not
intended to be a universal pension but when it got to the point
where the country needed a universal pension, it became one.
--scott


-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."