tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post5673720810405510798..comments2023-11-12T06:43:00.060-05:00Comments on Notes on Social Security Reform: Samuelson: “Young Voters -- Get Mad”Andrew G. Biggshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617460431856611873noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post-86744448542762360962008-10-28T10:48:00.000-04:002008-10-28T10:48:00.000-04:00Sorry, to directly answer your question, we should...Sorry, to directly answer your question, we should all pay it. I don't believe in pushing the cost onto somebody else, but for sure that is what we are doing running up debt, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post-17262354469918750712008-10-28T10:41:00.000-04:002008-10-28T10:41:00.000-04:00The problem is the assumption that a choice to pay...The problem is the assumption that a choice to pay that extra tax would somehow lead to disaster. I think that distorts the public choice. <BR/><BR/>The public discussion is polluted with a lot of hyperbole and efforts to emotionalize the decision. Both sides share some blame. The choice is never really put to the public, what are you willing to pay for a viable social security system and how should we distribute the costs? It's not an adult discussion, and although you are a very sophisticated person , I think you are doing plenty to both inform and distort. <BR/><BR/>For example, I proposed that it would be possible to shift 1% of GDP's worth of tax resources we spend on defense and instead give it to SS (how much did we waste in Iraq?). Maybe that is plausible and maybe not. But we could do that without raising payroll taxes one bit. And yet your response was we'd have to raise payroll taxes to ~16% of payroll to make SS solvent, doesn't that sound horrible. <BR/><BR/>It's all in how we pose the question isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post-78468943506064659192008-10-27T16:09:00.000-04:002008-10-27T16:09:00.000-04:00If people want to pay in 1% of GDP more, they can....If people want to pay in 1% of GDP more, they can. Or, if they'd prefer to cut benefits by 1% of GDP, they can do that too. The problem seems to be that everyone wants everyone else to pay more, not themselves. To make Social Security sustainably solvent would involve an immediate and permanent payroll tax increase of around 3.2 percentage points, to a total payroll tax of 15.6%. Do you want to pay that? Or would you prefer other people to pay it? While I don't know your preferences, it's much more common to hear the latter.Andrew G. Biggshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617460431856611873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7334408760351487944.post-22486946023174390172008-10-27T15:47:00.000-04:002008-10-27T15:47:00.000-04:00In Samuelson's world, and maybe yours too, taking ...In Samuelson's world, and maybe yours too, taking 1% of GDP a year from defense/homeland security spending and putting it into SS would cause a giant rift in the earth's surface that would swallow our entire country, right? <BR/><BR/>This is entirely an ideological commitment and has nothing to do with what would maximize the welfare of the country. <BR/><BR/>If people want to afford SS they will pay for it. It's pretty much that simple, and you know it. You are way too smart for rank demagoguery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com