How would you fix the United States' budget problem?

[Parpolitic Citizens]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 28,00.html

Great, you've learnt the miracle of citation. Kind of ignored the meat of my post though...

If you actually take the time to read into the study they DID control for personal inclinations and subjective definitions of happiness.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Okay. But that means you have to force people to give up a larger portion of their earnings today to give them the ability to retire early. But having it national instead of personal doesn't matter unless you plan on giving people considerably more than they personally save, in which case you have exactly the same problem as I posed before.

Rather incorrect actually. I have examined some studies showing that it would only require people, all working people, to put in 1% of their income for 40 years, to produce enough for everyone to retire at 250% their annual salary before retirement.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Doesn't really matter though, if you can do that, go for it. Doesn't really address why it has to be national rather than personal though? If it's a personal account the person can choose how much, above the mandatory, they wish to contribute. They can choose to either consume more now or consume less now, put it in their retirement account, and consume more when they retire (or retire earlier if they want). If you make it a national account, that choice is taken away. Everybody will be wanting retiring earlier (since they've already payed for it), and everybody will have to pay in more when they're working. It takes away the individual choice.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Rather incorrect actually. I have examined some studies showing that it would only require people, all working people, to put in 1% of their income for 40 years, to produce enough for everyone to retire at 250% their annual salary before retirement.

Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Doesn't really matter though, if you can do that, go for it. Doesn't really address why it has to be national rather than personal though? If it's a personal account the person can choose how much, above the mandatory, they wish to contribute. They can choose to either consume more now or consume less now, put it in their retirement account, and consume more when they retire (or retire earlier if they want). If you make it a national account, that choice is taken away. Everybody will be wanting retiring earlier (since they've already payed for it), and everybody will have to pay in more when they're working. It takes away the individual choice.

Why national? Because the median income in America is 40,000 a year and the cost of living has skyrocketed. There are a lot of people who could save, however, the amount they save at the end wouldn't be enough to live on.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Great, you've learnt the miracle of citation. Kind of ignored the meat of my post though...

If you actually take the time to read into the study they DID control for personal inclinations and subjective definitions of happiness.

That's something you inherently can't control for because happiness is so poorly defined. And did you actually read the article? Because:

"...the study points out that there are actually two types of happiness. There's your changeable, day-to-day mood: whether you're stressed or blue or feeling emotionally sound. Then there's the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going — the kind of thing Tony Robbins tries to teach you. While having an income above the magic $75,000 cutoff doesn't seem to have an impact on the former (emotional well-being), it definitely improves people's Robbins-like life satisfaction."

Which one do you think is closer to "happiness", whatever "happiness" is? Your mood which changes from day to day, or you general level of satisfaction?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Doesn't really matter though, if you can do that, go for it. Doesn't really address why it has to be national rather than personal though? If it's a personal account the person can choose how much, above the mandatory, they wish to contribute. They can choose to either consume more now or consume less now, put it in their retirement account, and consume more when they retire (or retire earlier if they want). If you make it a national account, that choice is taken away. Everybody will be wanting retiring earlier (since they've already payed for it), and everybody will have to pay in more when they're working. It takes away the individual choice.

Why national? Because the median income in America is 40,000 a year and the cost of living has skyrocketed. There are a lot of people who could save, however, the amount they save at the end wouldn't be enough to live on.

Well that's bullshit. You realise investments have an inflation premium, right?

[Parpolitic Citizens]

If you actually take the time to read into the study they DID control for personal inclinations and subjective definitions of happiness.

That's something you inherently can't control for because happiness is so poorly defined. And did you actually read the article? Because:

"...the study points out that there are actually two types of happiness. There's your changeable, day-to-day mood: whether you're stressed or blue or feeling emotionally sound. Then there's the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going — the kind of thing Tony Robbins tries to teach you. While having an income above the magic $75,000 cutoff doesn't seem to have an impact on the former (emotional well-being), it definitely improves people's Robbins-like life satisfaction."

Which one do you think is closer to "happiness", whatever "happiness" is? Your mood which changes from day to day, or you general level of satisfaction?

The first is closest "happiness". Life satisfaction is based on how you are relative to other people. I don't know many who would consider keeping up with the Joneses as a worth cause for one's mental well being. Of course, that is not getting into the hedonic adaptations of affluence. Sure, being a billionaire will drastically increase your life-satisfaction score; however, you soon will adapt to the luxuries that kind of money provides and back at square one. Just having money doesn't increase your "happiness". Things like pro-social spending, building personal relationships and avoiding comparing one's self have been found to improve day to day happiness.

[New Corda]

Jack up taxes on the rich, create punitive tariffs on outsourcing, give tax breaks for using local labor, regulate business and increase taxes on large corporations, revamp the social security, welfare and healthcare programs so that they actually work, and throw in some major estate taxes just to be safe.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Why national? Because the median income in America is 40,000 a year and the cost of living has skyrocketed. There are a lot of people who could save, however, the amount they save at the end wouldn't be enough to live on.

Well that's bullshit. You realise investments have an inflation premium, right?

Yes, and wages have not increased for most people. The value of their work has decreased relative to everything else and that makes it harder for people contribute properly. Half of all people are earning less than 40,000 a year. That makes it hard to save.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

That's something you inherently can't control for because happiness is so poorly defined. And did you actually read the article? Because:

"...the study points out that there are actually two types of happiness. There's your changeable, day-to-day mood: whether you're stressed or blue or feeling emotionally sound. Then there's the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going — the kind of thing Tony Robbins tries to teach you. While having an income above the magic $75,000 cutoff doesn't seem to have an impact on the former (emotional well-being), it definitely improves people's Robbins-like life satisfaction."

Which one do you think is closer to "happiness", whatever "happiness" is? Your mood which changes from day to day, or you general level of satisfaction?

The first is closest "happiness". Life satisfaction is based on how you are relative to other people. I don't know many who would consider keeping up with the Joneses as a worth cause for one's mental well being. Of course, that is not getting into the hedonic adaptations of affluence. Sure, being a billionaire will drastically increase your life-satisfaction score; however, you soon will adapt to the luxuries that kind of money provides and back at square one. Just having money doesn't increase your "happiness". Things like pro-social spending, building personal relationships and avoiding comparing one's self have been found to improve day to day happiness.

Happiness isn't one of the options because it's not a well defined concept. And you've just shown that the better of the metrics they attempted to use is severely lacking. You're proving my point dude.

[New Corda]

Well that's bullshit. You realise investments have an inflation premium, right?

Yes, and wages have not increased for most people. The value of their work has decreased relative to everything else and that makes it harder for people contribute properly. Half of all people are earning less than 40,000 a year. That makes it hard to save.

Now, if we scrapped outsourcing and gave americans the opportunity to have good jobs again, and raised prices so that they could afford to pay workers more, so the workers could then buy more, we'd solve that problem

[Parpolitic Citizens]

The first is closest "happiness". Life satisfaction is based on how you are relative to other people. I don't know many who would consider keeping up with the Joneses as a worth cause for one's mental well being. Of course, that is not getting into the hedonic adaptations of affluence. Sure, being a billionaire will drastically increase your life-satisfaction score; however, you soon will adapt to the luxuries that kind of money provides and back at square one. Just having money doesn't increase your "happiness". Things like pro-social spending, building personal relationships and avoiding comparing one's self have been found to improve day to day happiness.

Happiness isn't one of the options because it's not a well defined concept. And you've just shown that the better of the metrics they attempted to use is severely lacking. You're proving my point dude.

Are you fucking kidding me? They perfectly defined happiness. The results of the study show that regardless of one's personal inclinations money earned after 75K does not increase day to day well being. I don't see how you can be so ardently against the idea.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Well that's bullshit. You realise investments have an inflation premium, right?

Yes, and wages have not increased for most people.

Since when?

The value of their work has decreased relative to everything else and that makes it harder for people contribute properly. Half of all people are earning less than 40,000 a year. That makes it hard to save.

That's also true for Australia, yet we have one of the highest savings rates in the OECD because of our superannuation system. And our trend inflation rate is higher than yours. These arguments don't hold up to observation.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Happiness isn't one of the options because it's not a well defined concept. And you've just shown that the better of the metrics they attempted to use is severely lacking. You're proving my point dude.

Are you fucking kidding me? They perfectly defined happiness. The results of the study show that regardless of one's personal inclinations money earned after 75K does not increase day to day well being. I don't see how you can be so ardently against the idea.

Oh, maybe I missed it. What's the definition of happiness?

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Yes, and wages have not increased for most people.

Since when?

The value of their work has decreased relative to everything else and that makes it harder for people contribute properly. Half of all people are earning less than 40,000 a year. That makes it hard to save.

That's also true for Australia, yet we have one of the highest savings rates in the OECD because of our superannuation system. And our trend inflation rate is higher than yours. These arguments don't hold up to observation.

The superannuation system is an failure.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/retir ... -8gvu.html

A bureau survey taken in mid-2007, but released yesterday, reports that 15 per cent of Australian workers aged 45 and over say they don't plan to retire, but just keep working until they drop. Most intend to ease down to part-time work. But, overall, less than 30 per cent of middle-aged and older Australians now intend to retire before they turn 65.

If this eventuates, it will transform the Australian workforce and concepts of retirement. The bureau found people already retired, on average, did so aged just 52 (58 for men, 47 for women).

That change is now under way. Bureau figures show that in November, 60 per cent of men aged 60 to 64 were still in the workforce — as were 29 per cent of men aged 65 to 69 and 7 per cent of men 70 and over. Women are catching up: 39 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 are still at work, as are 15 per cent of those aged 65 to 69, and 2 per cent of the over-70s.

One reason people are working longer could be inadequate superannuation.

The bureau survey found that in mid-2007, the median superannuation balance reported by Australian workers was just $23,698. Even among workers aged 55 to 64, the median balance was just $71,731. Men average almost twice as much as women, and public servants almost twice as much as those in the private sector.

The mean or average superannuation balance was much higher, but only because some have very large superannuation assets. Only 20 per cent of men and 11 per cent of women said they had $100,000 or more in their super account.

Like I said before. It's not enough to live on.

Secondly...

This past Friday, Brookings Institution scholars Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney released new research on the Up Front Blog detailing how Americans are working longer hours than ever, but not netting higher wages for hours worked.
The researchers shockingly found that “although median wages for two-parent families have increased 23 percent since 1975, the evidence suggests that this is not the result of higher wages. Rather, these families are just working more. In 2009, for instance, the typical two-parent family worked 26 percent longer than the typical family in 1975.” They illustrate this with the following graph:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/0 ... ent-wages/
(Image)

[Parpolitic Citizens]

Are you fucking kidding me? They perfectly defined happiness. The results of the study show that regardless of one's personal inclinations money earned after 75K does not increase day to day well being. I don't see how you can be so ardently against the idea.

Oh, maybe I missed it. What's the definition of happiness?

Here it is straight from the horse's abstract.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489

Emotional well-being refers to the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to the thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

The superannuation system is an failure.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/retirement-by-70-a-fading-hope-for-many-20090224-8gvu.html

A bureau survey taken in mid-2007, but released yesterday, reports that 15 per cent of Australian workers aged 45 and over say they don't plan to retire, but just keep working until they drop. Most intend to ease down to part-time work. But, overall, less than 30 per cent of middle-aged and older Australians now intend to retire before they turn 65.

If this eventuates, it will transform the Australian workforce and concepts of retirement. The bureau found people already retired, on average, did so aged just 52 (58 for men, 47 for women).

That change is now under way. Bureau figures show that in November, 60 per cent of men aged 60 to 64 were still in the workforce — as were 29 per cent of men aged 65 to 69 and 7 per cent of men 70 and over. Women are catching up: 39 per cent of those aged 60 to 64 are still at work, as are 15 per cent of those aged 65 to 69, and 2 per cent of the over-70s.

One reason people are working longer could be inadequate superannuation.

The bureau survey found that in mid-2007, the median superannuation balance reported by Australian workers was just $23,698. Even among workers aged 55 to 64, the median balance was just $71,731. Men average almost twice as much as women, and public servants almost twice as much as those in the private sector.

The mean or average superannuation balance was much higher, but only because some have very large superannuation assets. Only 20 per cent of men and 11 per cent of women said they had $100,000 or more in their super account.

Like I said before. It's not enough to live on.

Compulsory super was only instituted in 1992 at a 3% contribution rate which wasn't upped to 9% until 2002. Obviously there isn't currently a sufficient stock of savings for people to retire on. Most of the baby boomers are going to be retiring on only partial self-funding, but there's still a social security system to ensure a minimum income! It's long run reform. The expectation is that everybody will be fully self-funded in around 20 years.

Secondly...

This past Friday, Brookings Institution scholars Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney released new research on the Up Front Blog detailing how Americans are working longer hours than ever, but not netting higher wages for hours worked.
The researchers shockingly found that “although median wages for two-parent families have increased 23 percent since 1975, the evidence suggests that this is not the result of higher wages. Rather, these families are just working more. In 2009, for instance, the typical two-parent family worked 26 percent longer than the typical family in 1975.” They illustrate this with the following graph:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/0 ... ent-wages/
(Image)

I'm sorry, how is this relevant?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Oh, maybe I missed it. What's the definition of happiness?

Here it is straight from the horse's abstract.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489

Emotional well-being refers to the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to the thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it.

Those seem to be definitions for "emotional well-being" and "life evaluation". Proxies for the not well defined idea of "happiness". Even then, these concepts don't lend to rigorous methods of measurement or any degree of objectivity.

Arghhhh, this is annoying. We've entered into a ridiculous level of pedantry in a topic that was never important to the original point. "More money doesn't make you happier". So the fuck what? It doesn't mean people don't keep working for the money. Whether it legitimately makes them happier having that money (whatever that's supposed to mean) or if it's just a compulsion, doesn't affect the point at all.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

The superannuation system is an failure.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/retirement-by-70-a-fading-hope-for-many-20090224-8gvu.html

Like I said before. It's not enough to live on.

Compulsory super was only instituted in 1992 at a 3% contribution rate which wasn't upped to 9% until 2002. Obviously there isn't currently a sufficient stock of savings for people to retire on. Most of the baby boomers are going to be retiring on only partial self-funding, but there's still a social security system to ensure a minimum income! It's long run reform. The expectation is that everybody will be fully self-funded in around 20 years.

Secondly...

I'm sorry, how is this relevant?

I think I've wasted enough time talking to someone so insincere.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Compulsory super was only instituted in 1992 at a 3% contribution rate which wasn't upped to 9% until 2002. Obviously there isn't currently a sufficient stock of savings for people to retire on. Most of the baby boomers are going to be retiring on only partial self-funding, but there's still a social security system to ensure a minimum income! It's long run reform. The expectation is that everybody will be fully self-funded in around 20 years.



I'm sorry, how is this relevant?

I think I've wasted enough time talking to someone so insincere.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Herskerstad]

I love how some users try to 'fix' the budget problem by enacting tax raises mainly targeted at the rich and just cutting the military. While ignoring the near 60% entitlement spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 8WQ#t=157s

There, you've solved the yearly budget, and destroyed the economy.

[Parpolitic Citizens]

I love how some users try to 'fix' the budget problem by enacting tax raises mainly targeted at the rich and just cutting the military. While ignoring the near 60% entitlement spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 8WQ#t=157s

There, you've solved the yearly budget, and destroyed the economy.

Disingenuous right wing claptrap propaganda. Returning the military to pre-9/11 expenditure, instating single payer, returning to the pre-Bush tax rate, and lifting the cap on fica taxes would eliminate leave us with a surplus.

We can save the rich for dessert.

[New Corda]

I love how some users try to 'fix' the budget problem by enacting tax raises mainly targeted at the rich and just cutting the military. While ignoring the near 60% entitlement spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 8WQ#t=157s

There, you've solved the yearly budget, and destroyed the economy.

Disingenuous right wing claptrap propaganda. Returning the military to pre-9/11 expenditure, instating single payer, returning to the pre-Bush tax rate, and lifting the cap on fica taxes would eliminate leave us with a surplus.

We can save the rich for dessert.

All you needed there was "right-wing". Once you say that, disengeneous, claptrap and propaganda are implied automatically.

[Keronians]

I have a very simple five step plan.

1. Reduce military spending by 50%. Yes, vague, but a committee can deal with selecting what has to go.
2. Close all tax loopholes.
3. Increase taxes on the rich to about 55-60%.
4. Replace the entire healthcare clusterfuck with a streamlined universal healthcare plan.
5. Using the money that the military doesn't have any more, start public works programs.

In reference to number 3, apart from the fact that I find it unfair to take away over 50% of the product of a person's labour, the people you'd be charging this on simply wouldn't pay. They'd go to some tax haven, and sit there to avoid the tax.

You're more likely to reduce revenue than increase it. In the US, the Laffer curve probably peaks at around 40%. Of course, just a hunch. No basis on data.

[Death Metal]

1. Reverse Bush-Era tax cuts, going back to the Clinton scale.
2. Close all business tax exemptions on all businesses with public stock options, and all deductibles and loopholes for top percentile earners.
3. Halve the Military Budget. Including and especially from DARPA.
4. Temporary freeze on salaries and new jobs for all government branches. This includes interns and pages.
5. Slash NASA's budget and remove non-essential staff.
6. Remove FCC's indecency policies altogether, halving their budget and limiting them to enforcement of unauthorized airwave use and willful interference of airwaves.
7. Invest monies from 5 and 6 into clean fuel solutions.
8. Legalize (but regulate with the same standards as alcohol) all narcotics. Cutting the DEA and leaving regulation enforcement to the ATF.
9. Mix of free basic universal healthcare while leaving private businesses to offer private premium care, while making it a federal offense to deny care or increase rates due to medical history.
10. Amend the Constitution to redact the antiquated Letters of Marque and Reprisal clause, effectively ending use of PMCs on taxpayer dime.

[Ifreann]

Some immigration is fine. But "easier" immigration will inevitably lower the standard of living for native Americans, concentrate wealth, and stoke the flames of fascism.

Considering the vast majority of extremely anti-immigrant Americans are old white people, I don't think we need to cater to them.

But catering to old white men is the American way!