Apologies if this has been posted before.

Just finished listening to this this Freakonomics podcast and found it very interesting.

Edit: Somehow this posted when I linked the pod cast.

Here's the full article: https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-top-10-tax-myths

Riedl sounds and reads very pragmatic. Center right.

Basically, both parties lie about taxes - they tell the story their side want to hear. Both parties are big spenders. Biden was a BIG spender. Trump is a BIG spender.

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

Second edit:
Most interesting in the pod case is the part where Riedl calls out the Biden administration to boldfaced lying about the tax rate the rich paid. Basically, they concluded the rich only pay 9% income tax but included wealth and unrealized gains in the math - which there not included in the income tax calculation. Politicians suck.

NM you edited it

NM...same here.

I don't think anyone on this board would say Republicans aren't big spenders. They just spend slightly differently or just roll over to every Democrat whim. The old Country Club R's may still think they are spending watch dogs but I honestly don't know anyone anymore who doesn't realize and acknowledge both parties spend like drunken sailors.

The Democrats certainly profusely lie about taxes though along with everything else under the sun.

Which entitlements began under the Trump administration?

Most of the budget is fixed so every President is forced to be a big spender primarily because of previous Democrat administrations.

FDR - Social Security, LBJ - Great society (welfare), and Obama - Affordable care act. Plenty of bad decisions by Rs as well, but they are dwarfed by Dems

"We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out..."

I'd like to know if there is a means test which doesn't punish people for saving and investing throughout their life rather than spending everything earned and borrowing. Our society does a good job of rewarding bad behavior.

dmart90 said:

---

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

---

A technical but important point... all the SS taxes collected thus far still exceed total SS payments. There were many years when collections exceeded payments (surplus), but Congress (both D & R) spent it on other stuff because of their addiction to spending, instead of setting it aside for SS. Because Congress spent the surplus, they now have to support SS with money from the general fund, but that's only because of their prior spending abuse, not because SS hasn't collected enough in taxes.

It's also true beginning in roughly 2032, total SS payments will begin exceeding total SS taxes collected since the program began, and if nothing is done to change that, benefits will be reduced to about 85% of normal for the foreseeable future. Congress has had many opportunities to tweak the program to avoid that gap, but like always, they kick the can down the road and avoid tough choices that would risk their re-election. When this rooster comes home to roost and tough decisions have to be made in a few years, the vast majority of Congress critters who caused this will no longer be in office.

dmart90 said:

---

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Just finished listening to this this Freakonomics podcast and found it very interesting.

Edit: Somehow this posted when I linked the pod cast.

Here's the full article: https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-top-10-tax-myths

Riedl sounds and reads very pragmatic. Center right.

Basically, both parties lie about taxes - they tell the story their side want to hear. Both parties are big spenders. Biden was a BIG spender. Trump is a BIG spender.

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

Second edit:
Most interesting in the pod case is the part where Riedl calls out the Biden administration to boldfaced lying about the tax rate the rich paid. Basically, they concluded the rich only pay 9% income tax but included wealth and unrealized gains in the math - which there not included in the income tax calculation. Politicians suck.

---

What does she mean by "means test"? Like progressive tax policy or phase outs by age? We should absolutely do the latter.

Most important reality about taxes:

Kid cries after finding out he has to pay taxes in a game of Monopoly pic.twitter.com/d8BOmYHGGB

— Astra (@defiAstra) March 25, 2024

I started that podcast last week and got pulled away. I found it interesting and meant to follow up, so I appreciate you posting.

I did take some issue with his first premise that cutting taxes doesn't always pay for themselves. Firstly, I noticed he injected the word always, which is a huge hedge. The other is - and maybe he addressed it in later points - is that raising taxes does not increase revenue.

Graphs of historical data show that as a percent of GDP, tax revenue remains within a fairly no band no matter the marginal rates. So why not set the tax rate that increases the GDP?

YouBet said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Just finished listening to this this Freakonomics podcast and found it very interesting.

Edit: Somehow this posted when I linked the pod cast.

Here's the full article: https://manhattan.institute/article/correcting-the-top-10-tax-myths

Riedl sounds and reads very pragmatic. Center right.

Basically, both parties lie about taxes - they tell the story their side want to hear. Both parties are big spenders. Biden was a BIG spender. Trump is a BIG spender.

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

Second edit:
Most interesting in the pod case is the part where Riedl calls out the Biden administration to boldfaced lying about the tax rate the rich paid. Basically, they concluded the rich only pay 9% income tax but included wealth and unrealized gains in the math - which there not included in the income tax calculation. Politicians suck.

---

What does she mean by "means test"? Like progressive tax policy or phase outs by age? We should absolutely do the latter.

---

Listened to the podcast yesterday her example was high earners (Biden and Trump were the examples) should not withdraw social security. Of course she acknowledged this is DOA as it stands today as it would take massive effort to ever get to this point.

Spending must be fixed first. End of story full stop.

I'm done being told we don't pay enough.

Tax policy is meant to turn us against each other.

Means testing is robbery.

That's like a criminal saying "I robbed you because you could afford it." And the judge letting them off Scott free.

That allows unfair tyrannybof the minority by the majority.

I am OKAY with the government offering a buyout.

IF you feel that you are going to be means tested out or your SS reduced because of it, you signa contract with the government.

Pay me out at 75% of what I have put in.

Allow me to never have to pay to SS ever again.

And they can keep 25% of what I put in.

A buy out I am okay with.

Means testing to determine if I am poor enough to collect what I put in and was told I would get back....**** you.

We were told when this was put in place that everyone gets the same because everyone puts in the same. That was how they pitched it.

That is my red line.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

It's also true beginning in roughly 2032, total SS payments will begin exceeding total SS taxes collected since the program began, and if nothing is done to change that, benefits will be reduced to about 85% of normal for the foreseeable future. Congress has had many opportunities to tweak the program to avoid that gap, but like always, they kick the can down the road and avoid tough choices that would risk their re-election. When this rooster comes home to roost and tough decisions have to be made in a few years, the vast majority of Congress critters who caused this will no longer be in office.

---

No politician, now or in the future, will ever cut/reduce benefits for obvious reasons. They will continue to spend more than we take in, they are experts at it. I always laugh when someone says they expect to never get a dime from social security.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

---

It's also true beginning in roughly 2032, total SS payments will begin exceeding total SS taxes collected since the program began, and if nothing is done to change that, benefits will be reduced to about 85% of normal for the foreseeable future. Congress has had many opportunities to tweak the program to avoid that gap, but like always, they kick the can down the road and avoid tough choices that would risk their re-election. When this rooster comes home to roost and tough decisions have to be made in a few years, the vast majority of Congress critters who caused this will no longer be in office.

---

We did fix it. We increased the tax rate for both the employee and employer and also increased the retirement age to make social security safe for 100 years. However, the voters couldn't help themselves….they voted for politicians that used this new pot of money to expand/increase benefits.

So tweaking won't work…government always expands beyond its budget. The only recent time it did not was when we won the Cold War and reaped the benefits of a huge reduction in defense spending.

Whatever you save or collect will ultimately be consumed by voters who vote to take their neighbors' property. The only real solution is to drastically reduce the federal government's to the purposes enumerated in the constitution…..and allow each state to fill as much of the void as its citizens are willing to bear.

So the plan is to turn SS and Medicare into a straight up entitlement. Even more so than now.

Do liberals ever see a wealth redistribution scheme that they do not love?

We dont have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. As noted above and through various research projects, tax revenue remains about the same relative to GDP regardless of all the tweaks to the tax code.

HarleySpoon said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

---

It's also true beginning in roughly 2032, total SS payments will begin exceeding total SS taxes collected since the program began, and if nothing is done to change that, benefits will be reduced to about 85% of normal for the foreseeable future. Congress has had many opportunities to tweak the program to avoid that gap, but like always, they kick the can down the road and avoid tough choices that would risk their re-election. When this rooster comes home to roost and tough decisions have to be made in a few years, the vast majority of Congress critters who caused this will no longer be in office.

---

We did fix it. We increased the tax rate for both the employee and employer and also increased the retirement age to make social security safe for 100 years. However, the voters couldn't help themselves….they voted for politicians that used this new pot of money to expand/increase benefits.

So tweaking won't work…government always expands beyond its budget. The only recent time it did not was when we won the Cold War and reaped the benefits of a huge reduction in defense spending.

Whatever you save or collect will ultimately be consumed by voters who vote to take their neighbors' property. The only real solution is to drastically reduce the federal government's to the purposes enumerated in the constitution…..and allow each state to fill as much of the void as its citizens are willing to bear.

---

Voters have not shown any inclination to vote for politicians who want reduce entitlements and subsidies.

There are too many on the dole at this point. They aren't going to vote against their own interests. It's why the federal government hasn't had a budget since 1996 and why the debt has been ignored since around the same time.

Rocky Rider said:

---

"We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out..."

I'd like to know if there is a means test which doesn't punish people for saving and investing throughout their life rather than spending everything earned and borrowing. Our society does a good job of rewarding bad behavior.

---

And effing over the upper middle class that have been paying the most into social security every year

Both sides are huge liars when it comes to this. They both want to spend, just on different things. Trump will spend a ton but many will justify it because he's our guy.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

dmart90 said:

---

We have to fix the tax policy, but was also have to fix the budget. SS and Medicare are bankrupting us. Riedl is a fan of the means test. Sounds like we have 30 years to figure this out...

---

A technical but important point... all the SS taxes collected thus far still exceed total SS payments. There were many years when collections exceeded payments (surplus), but Congress (both D & R) spent it on other stuff because of their addiction to spending, instead of setting it aside for SS. Because Congress spent the surplus, they now have to support SS with money from the general fund, but that's only because of their prior spending abuse, not because SS hasn't collected enough in taxes.

It's also true beginning in roughly 2032, total SS payments will begin exceeding total SS taxes collected since the program began, and if nothing is done to change that, benefits will be reduced to about 85% of normal for the foreseeable future. Congress has had many opportunities to tweak the program to avoid that gap, but like always, they kick the can down the road and avoid tough choices that would risk their re-election. When this rooster comes home to roost and tough decisions have to be made in a few years, the vast majority of Congress critters who caused this will no longer be in office.

---

The truth about Social Security is that Congress uses it as a cheap source of money. The money is "loaned" to the government at cheap rates. If the government paid market rates for that money, the deficit would be much higher. If the money had actually been invested instead of used as a cheap source of money to pay for some of that spending, Social Security payments could be far higher than what they are and the fund would still be on very solid foundations.

Cynic said:

---

Both sides are huge liars when it comes to this. They both want to spend, just on different things. Trump will spend a ton but many will justify it because he's our guy.

---

I think there's plenty of ignorance and laziness as well. I hope DOGE is able to get things exposed and cleaned up.

Quote:

---

Voters have not shown any inclination to vote for politicians who want reduce entitlements and subsidies.

---

If you rob Peter and give the money to Paul, you will always have Paul's vote. We have far too many Pauls.

Quote:

---

Riedl is a fan of the means test.

---

What does this mean? Tax everyone but only provide to those who need it?

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Riedl is a fan of the means test.

---

What does this mean? Tax everyone but only provide to those who need it?

---

Exactly

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Riedl is a fan of the means test.

---

What does this mean? Tax everyone but only provide to those who need it?

---

Yes, just like all of the other entitlements paid by the income taxes of the top earners.

Well if the Elons and Tom Foxes of the world just paid their fair share!!!!!!1













Just checking to make sure youtook your BP meds today.

BigRobSA said:

---

Well if the Elons and Tom Foxes of the world just paid their fair share!!!!!!1













Just checking to make sure youtook your BP meds today.

---

20mg lisinopril. Everyday my friend.

sam callahan said:

---

I started that podcast last week and got pulled away. I found it interesting and meant to follow up, so I appreciate you posting.

I did take some issue with his first premise that cutting taxes doesn't always pay for themselves. Firstly, I noticed he injected the word always, which is a huge hedge. The other is - and maybe he addressed it in later points - is that raising taxes does not increase revenue.

Graphs of historical data show that as a percent of GDP, tax revenue remains within a fairly no band no matter the marginal rates. So why not set the tax rate that increases the GDP?

---

Many people point at the Laffer Curve as justification for the notion that dropping taxes pays for itself. In doing so, they show that they are ignorant about the Laffer Curve.

The Laffer curve shows that there is a tax rate at which dropping tax rates would bring in more money but there is nothing to show that we are anywhere near that point. If the tax rate is less than that point, it clearly shows that dropping tax rates will decrease tax collections.

Ask yourself if you are paying so much in taxes that the actual take-home pay is so low that it isn't worth working to you and so you are willing to work less. Only if tax rates were so high that people would feel that they need to work less and therefore pay less and drop into lower tax rates could we be on the high side of the inflection point.

A bigger point that nearly everyone fails to grasp is that the Laffer Curve is not actually about dropping taxes at all. It is about maximizing tax revenue.

There are, however, some for which their effective tax rate is above that inflection point if I understand it correctly -- people on welfare. I may misunderstand the way welfare works, but my understanding from this issue back in the 1970s is that if they work and earn money, their welfare payments drop by that amount and so they end up with the same income whether they work or not. Many people on welfare would be able to work some time, but if they don't keep any of their income, their tax rate is 100% and that is definitely well above the inflection point of the Laffer Curve. As a result, there is no value to them to take any kind of job unless it pays completely off the table. Welfare, in effect, becomes a trap that makes sure they will never climb out of it. If you actually want to reduce welfare, then allow them to keep some of what they earn working so that they are better off doing some work even if they cannot work full time. Sure, some would rather not work, but some would.

The way to reduce it is to eliminate it.

Tom Fox said:

---

The way to reduce it is to eliminate it.

---

My views are that we should limit our spending to whatever we bring in and that social security should be invested, not used as a cheap source of funds paid back at very low rates.

Put ourselves on a real budget that means something.

heavens11 said:

---

Ag83 said:

---

Quote:

---

Riedl is a fan of the means test.

---

What does this mean? Tax everyone but only provide to those who need it?

---

Exactly

---

So basically, "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"? That about right?

eric76 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

The way to reduce it is to eliminate it.

---

My views are that we should limit our spending to whatever we bring in and that social security should be invested, not used as a cheap source of funds paid back at very low rates.

Put ourselves on a real budget that means something.

---

I have great news for you, entitlements make up 2/3 of the budget. Budget balanced.

Taxation is theft.

The R's rob you to your face. The D's try to pretend they aren't robbing you, but are 10x worse.

As you can see by the USAID thread.

Queer training in Mozambique is not a critical mission of the United States of America. And even if it were, we should make sure the $$ we allocate go to that mission, not to Democrat loser pockets.