Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[kaijyuu]

I'll pop in to note that any working system of guaranteed income needs to not have any exploitable breakpoints. No extra dollar you earn should have an overall negative impact.

A lot of the problems with our current welfare systems/etc is that once you start earning past some arbitrary breakpoint, you suddenly lose out on a lot of benefits. So people are encouraged to hover just below it, when we should always be encouraging people to work more.

[Sheb]

Actually, at least for federal benefits, there is no real breakpoint in the current system (Earning more never results in less income), but the marginal tax rate (How much the state takes from every extra dollar, including benefits cut) reach 95% at some point. Source: An article in the Economist I read in paper.

Still, one advantage of a universal income (or of generally merging benefits) is that it's easier to design the system right.

By the way, does anyone has data on what percentage of the cost of benefits program goes to administration and overhead?

[GreatJustice]

Actually, at least for federal benefits, there is no real breakpoint in the current system (Earning more never results in less income), but the marginal tax rate (How much the state takes from every extra dollar, including benefits cut) reach 95% at some point. Source: An article in the Economist I read in paper.

Still, one advantage of a universal income (or of generally merging benefits) is that it's easier to design the system right.

By the way, does anyone has data on what percentage of the cost of benefits program goes to administration and overhead?

Income doesn't get cut by the increased taxes, but welfare payments definitely do.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Sheb]

Well, I may be wrong. Are those federal numbers, or numbers for Pennsylvania, including state benefits though?

Edit: I tracked the article down, after using a proxy to circumvent the paywall. The fun thing is that it's also for Pennsylvania, where they're quoting a CBO studies that look at a single mom, but the marginal tax rate never get higher that 95% (i.e. You never actually loose money by earning a bigger wage). I can't explain the discrepancy between my article and your graph.

[Helgoland]

Take a look at a true welfare state's budget, namely that of Germany. The size of the whole budget is 310*10⁹€, the welfare budget is ~120*10⁹€, and the health budget is ~12*10⁹€.
Germany has a population of slightly more than 80 million people. If we assume a basic income of 500€ per month per person, we get a financial requirement of 480*10⁹€ per year. Now, this doesn't take into account that the German government subsidizes pensions etc., but these subsidies could be phased out after a  - roughly the same amount of money that's being spent. Now, this ignores some spending in the pension and health sectors, but the introduction of a basic income would allow a tax raise that gets back almost all the money given to people who don't need it.

EDIT: I forgot a factor of twelve! That's what happens when you do calculations without units.

[GreatJustice]

Well, I may be wrong. Are those federal numbers, or numbers for Pennsylvania, including state benefits though?

Edit: I tracked the article down, after using a proxy to circumvent the paywall. The fun thing is that it's also for Pennsylvania, where they're quoting a CBO studies that look at a single mom, but the marginal tax rate never get higher that 95% (i.e. You never actually loose money by earning a bigger wage). I can't explain the discrepancy between my article and your graph.

Economic statistics are annoyingly malleable at times. I'll go look for an article on this myself and maybe we can figure this out. brb

edit: alright, here's the article attached to the image: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/114628958?access_key=key-2lath56wpkd24rabyzx5&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

[mainiac]

I leave for a few days and people start posting crap about social security being a basket case.



Yeah, it's a total meltdown!  Run for the hills!

[BurnedToast]

Because it can't be funded properly so long as it relies upon contributions from the workers to the retired. And given how large a portion of the budget it makes up, we can't just use more taxes to fund it.

Why not? We'd only have to add enough taxes to make up the difference, not to fund the whole thing anew. Tax rates are incredibly low right now, the lowest they've basically been in a hundred years, there's plenty we could do to pull in more money if we decide we need to.

In fact, keeping SS solvent is probably one of the few things that would be politically feasible as a reason to raise taxes, something the government should be doing anyway, so in my mind everything about SS (it's effects, it's funding, it's future political ramifications) is a good thing. Why would we want to argue that we should get rid of it and let the old folks rot? What does that accomplish, exactly?

You don't really get it, do you? I'll admit I'm not a fan of the retired population, but that's not what this is about. SS is going to collapse. Period. We can either replace it before the problem spirals out of control, or we can let it spiral out of control, but we most certainly can't keep it. The math fails on a basic level. There cannot be a lower population of contributors than beneficiaries.

No, it's not going to collapse, period. This is just BS misinformation and lies spread by people who want to kill it for political reasons. Social security actually currently shows a slight surplus and is expected to continue to show a surplus till 2021. In 2021 payouts are expected to exceed income - but even if *nothing* is done it will be able to make full payouts till at least 2033 and continue to make 3/4 payouts indefinitely. Now, cutting payments to 3/4 is far from ideal, but it's hardly "collapsing" and 3/4ths is a lot more then "never getting SS payments".

Meanwhile, there are things we could do such as raising the wage limits for example, that would let them make full payments indefinitely, or even just allow more immigration to increase the workforce.

Fun fact: The biggest single cause of the shortfall, contributing 43% is not falling birth rates, or people living longer, but rather the rising income inequality in the US.

[Loud Whispers]

You know how I'm opposed to all these laws that are overbearing on the populace for the sake of anti-terrurism, but this one has me conflicted.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

On the one hand, I'm morally opposed, on the other hand it causes the arrests of attention seeking brats. I think the fact that it's enjoyable just makes it even more immoral.

[nenjin]

And this is why Twitter is stupid.

[Helgoland]

-snip-

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to arrest her - beware the beginnings! You have to draw the line somewhere, and since there's very few people as dumb as her, we can draw it like it is drawn today.

[Descan]

The chronology of those posts was a little confusing... Just straight down, right?

[Loud Whispers]

You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

[Darvi]

You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a fire. Not like I had any intention of doing it in the first place.

[Loud Whispers]

You don't shout fire in a crowded theatre.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I see a fire. Not like I had any intention of doing it in the first place.

But then it'd be a burning crowded theatre. Different scenario altogether.