Comments on: Americas Lousy Tax Code

By: petty boozshwa

petty boozshwa — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:26:24 +0000

If Dick Cheney Enterprises dumps a ton of toxic waste in a public river it’s not unfair and ill-conceived to ask him to help pay for the clean-up costs. If parents – it takes two – decide to add to the social pathologies known to be exacerbated by single parenthood they should have to pay to defray the costs.For the record, I’m a single parent raising four boys.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:27:24 +0000

Sorry, but punishing someone for being a single mother is unfair and ill-conceived. If I pay into the system, I should get my benefits.Would you agree to confiscate SS benefits for divorcees?

By: petty boozshwa

petty boozshwa — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:53:29 +0000

Sorry my shorthand wasn’t understandable – here’s the nub of my proposal: use the social security/FICA tax system to reward good/socially constructive behavior and penalize those that indulge in socially destructive behavior. Since we have turned the income tax into a program of bread and circuses for those in the bottom two fifths of the income spectrum, the main source of revenue we have from that group is the payroll tax. We can add a carbon tax, or a national sales tax, but people don’t like new taxes, therefore I think we should use FICA to discourage bad behaviors that impose social costs – like single parenthood or illegal entry into the country – rather than penalize productive activities.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:51:26 +0000

danbmil99: I remember a similar exchange from a novel, "The Wanting of Levine." It went like this:

Liberal: "I don't want America to be a superpower."
Levine: "Wait ten years, and then tell me how much you like it when we're not."

By: barker13

barker13 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 11:33:20 +0000

Stirring essay, Doug... but where's the beef?

WHAT exactly are your reform proposals...???

Re: Petty boozshwa; 11:24 PM --

"...why don't we tie the social security benefit to social policy objectives?"

Huh...??? I'm reading the words... but not understanding the meaning. Come again...???

"The externalities borne by society to provide for single parenting should be defrayed by confiscating all payroll tax contributions above the minimum wage..."

Seriously. Is it me...??? "Externalities...?" "Confiscating...?" Could you flesh out your proposal a bit more, please? (Perhaps come up with a real world example...)

"...postponing the retirement age of those parents [father and mother] to age 72."

Well... I don't know about "those parents," but I'm with you on raising the eligibility age for Social Security.

(*THUMBS UP*)

"Likewise any future amnesty for illegal aliens should require they forfeit any past FICA contributions in addition to a real, not a slap on the wrist, fine for jumping the queue."

I'd go even further. No only do they forfeit pas FICA contributions, but if they want to stay here they'll continue to pay FICA for however long they remain while NEVER becoming eligible to collect. In other words, that's the price they pay for coming here illegally. If they don't like it... no one's holding 'em hostage; they can return to their home countries anytime they chose.

Here's the deal: I'd consider an "amnesty" for illegal aliens but as part of the deal there'd have to be the condition that the illegals would NEVER get citizenship.

BILL

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:08:53 +0000

It seems quite obvious that the Dems know darn well that we can't afford these deficits. They are trying to enshrine as many new entitlements as possible. Once it is political suicide to roll them back, we will be forced to tax the middle class and inflate the currency to pay for them, just as they do in Europe.

Talking to my liberal friends, I am pretty much convinced that they simply do not care if the US has slower growth. Nor do they care if we lose our entrepreneurial zeal. They think it's fine to be like Europe. Philosophically, they are tired of being the alpha dog; they would be happy with our taking a lower profile in world affairs. They do not feel that it is our responsibility or even in our interest to evangelize our concepts of capitalism and democracy. Pragmatically, they do not think it's even possible.

Deep down, they feel it's a reasonable sacrifice to exchange the mantle of world leadership for a lower echelon position in world affairs, in exchange for a stronger social safety net and improvement of conditions for the poor and disenfranchised.

I don't think that's how mainstream independents who voted for Obama feel (such as myself). It is however definitely the position of those well on the left; increasingly it seems that Obama himself is either in that category, or is shrewdly aligning himself with them for political reasons. Either way, it's troubling.

By: petty boozshwa

petty boozshwa — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:24:04 +0000

I’ve made a proposal on this blog in other contexts, but it seems applicable here: why don’t we tie the social security benefit to social policy objectives. The externalities borne by society to provide for single parenting should be defrayed by confiscating all payroll tax contributions above the minimum wage and postponing the retirement age of those parents [father and mother] to age 72. Likewise any future amnesty for illegal aliens should require they forfeit any past FICA contributions in addition to a real, not a slap on the wrist, fine for jumping the queue.