tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post4629725145198269210..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: Social Security a Tax?Eric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-48719563289004361542011-04-27T18:49:12.227-05:002011-04-27T18:49:12.227-05:00Again, I don't see why this is such a magical ...Again, I don't see why this is such a magical mystery. Social Security is a great deal for someone who is a retiree when it starts. It becomes a worse deal over time. If you have a steady-state population that reproduces at replacement level rates, it's a mediocre deal. When you get to the last generation on the planet, it's a horrible deal. It's possible that you guys have some information that I'm lacking -- tell me, is the world going to end sometime soon?Anonymous #5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-76668041779551146082011-04-27T14:19:00.388-05:002011-04-27T14:19:00.388-05:00Anon #5, before he resigned from the economics pro...Anon #5, before he resigned from the economics profession, Krugman wrote both that SS was a Ponzi scheme and that the SS trust fund was 'something of a joke'.<br /><br />Maybe that's what Landsburg had in mind when he said that it was amazing how much economics Krugman had to learn to win the Nobel prize and equally amazing how much economics he had to forget to write for the NY Times.Patrick R. Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-52658268719512246012011-04-27T09:37:54.836-05:002011-04-27T09:37:54.836-05:00The corrolary to the Trust Fund being a fiction is...The corrolary to the Trust Fund being a fiction is that the insolvency problem is also a fiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-39126315515640924052011-04-26T21:30:46.439-05:002011-04-26T21:30:46.439-05:00Social Security went into crisis in the 1980s. At...Social Security went into crisis in the 1980s. At that point Reagan and Greenspan got together and raised the payroll tax and reduced benefits.<br /><br />I guess I don't understand what is so complicated about this. Social Security is a political arrangement. People pay taxes and receive benefits in accordance with what they pay in. There is nothing enforcing this legally, so in theory politicians are free to decide that someone who pays payroll taxes their entire life will get nothing when they retire. That seems relatively unlikely to me because old people have a lot of political power. The term "payroll tax" is several decades old and has nothing to do with current economic conditions. If you really believe that Social Security is just a bankrupt Ponzi scheme, then you must also believe that Paul Krugman the Stupid Evil Hack With a Bitch Wife That No One Should Pay Attention To is 100% correct in pointing out that our tax system is rather regressive in many respects. If instead you believe that Krugman is a moron for not understanding that Social Security benefits are regressive in nature, then as a matter of consistency you should talk about who benefits from government spending, which is really an entirely different conversation.<br /><br />I guess either way, Krugman is dumz.Anonymous #5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-85547346920848457492011-04-26T16:59:09.495-05:002011-04-26T16:59:09.495-05:00it's a tax posing as old age insurance, where ...it's a tax posing as old age insurance, where payouts to old people made its presentation tenable when demographics were favorable, but going forward will have to be abrogated because it it's just a bankrupt ponzi scheme. When the government renegs on this and other off-balance sheet liabilities, the economy will be in big trouble. Often politicians have claimed this as pure insurance, as opposed to revenue to the general fund, and today many still state it is fully funded.Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-46643399778510634622011-04-26T15:47:10.691-05:002011-04-26T15:47:10.691-05:00'...because if you think about it, it's ac...'...because if you think about it, it's actually a... tax... wait a second...'<br /><br />Yes, let's do just that. Does one earn a compensating benefit when one pays income taxes? You do when you pay payroll taxes...in fact, they seem to resemble pension contributions in that regard.Patrick R. Sullivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-91334947701867507872011-04-26T11:16:35.447-05:002011-04-26T11:16:35.447-05:00And, Krugman fails to note that on an after tax ba...And, Krugman fails to note that on an after tax basis, the benefits are even more regressive than the tax.<br /><br />I don't know why anyone pays attention to Krugman -- he is a hack.David Merkelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05073877918072914309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-30023422854820947142011-04-26T11:04:40.368-05:002011-04-26T11:04:40.368-05:00Ah yes, the mask slips. The term "payroll ta...Ah yes, the mask slips. The term "payroll tax" is pretty Orwellian, because if you think about it, it's actually a... tax... wait a second...<br /><br />Or is the idea that Krugman invented the term "payroll tax"? Five and a half million hits on Google already.Anonymous #5noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-82429693402228482282011-04-26T10:52:27.658-05:002011-04-26T10:52:27.658-05:00I hope some liberal Hollywood producer will read t...I hope some liberal Hollywood producer will read this, and we can count on a thriller centered around someone stealing this filing cabinet - Sean Penn playing the gritty FBI agent who saves the day...Jebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17026756284258086866noreply@blogger.com