# This would suck for ski day trippers and long commuters



## Puck it (May 5, 2011)

Some states are looking at this and now the feds.  This would hurt local tourism.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile


----------



## bvibert (May 5, 2011)

Don't like it.  The gas tax essentially already does this, but to varying levels depending on the efficiency of the vehicle.

I also question how the technology side of it would work?  Sensors in every car that would automatically be read at filling stations?  How much is that going to cost to implement?  What kind of 'sensor' would it be?  To work on all makes, and old and new vehicles, alike it would seem to have to be some sort of GPS technology, which would be far from accurate and of course would upset a lot of people who don't want big brother watching them any more than they already are.  If it's not some sort of GPS based system, then what?  Older cars use a mechanical system from the transmission to the speedo, newer cars are all electronic, and in between you have some cars that use a mix of mechanical and electronic.  Are we going to develop different sensor modules for all different types of cars and then let some mechanic hack up our wiring harnesses to install them?  Then start forcing manufacturers to install the devices from the factory?   

Doesn't seem all that well thought out to me... But what do I know??


----------



## Glenn (May 5, 2011)

A silly idea IMHO. When will the craziness stop?


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

Won't happen, but because of privacy concerns. It's ridiculous anyways, by the same logic they should tax bicycles as well.


----------



## Puck it (May 5, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Won't happen, but because of privacy concerns. It's ridiculous anyways, by the same logic they should tax bicycles as well.


 
I think Oregon and Minneosta if  I am not mistaken have small pilot programs runnings and they are only reporting miles driven not location.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

Off hand it seems like a problematic idea.  It would punish high efficiency cars that currently pay a reduced gas tax.  And people might find ways to cheat and disable the gps odometer between fill ups.  Then there's the privacy problem since law enforcement would love to have tracking data on everyone if they could get it.

But with gas guzzlers heading the way of the dinosaurs, the gas tax probably isn't going to cut it in the future.  Electric cars won't even be using gas.

When you try to think of the fairest way to tax people for roads, doing it by the mile makes some sense.  The other way would be to use transponders like easy pass to make all major roads toll roads, but that would punish people that use those roads, and let other people pay nothing by using back roads all the time.

Or there could be a big car registration fee, but that would punish people that hardly ever drive while high mileage people would get a free ride.

If they do go this way in the future, I hope the tax will be based on both mileage and vehicle weight.  The heavy trucks do a lot more road damage per mile than small cars.  And skiers should get a tax break for every day spent on the hill.


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I think Oregon and Minneosta if I am not mistaken have small pilot programs runnings and they are only reporting miles driven not location.


I didn't say they were _rational_ privacy concerns. Just that the mention of a government-owned GPS unit on your car would immediately bring out the privacy nuts.


----------



## hammer (May 5, 2011)

Here we go again...a tax to set public policy that will just become an extra tax to enhance revenues...


----------



## bvibert (May 5, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I didn't say they were _rational_ privacy concerns. Just that the mention of a government-owned GPS unit on your car would immediately bring out the privacy nuts.



Exactly


----------



## Riverskier (May 5, 2011)

This is ridiculous in so many ways that I could write a novel about it. I don't have the time or interest in doing so, but talk about screwing people who live in rural areas. There are MANY people in Maine who commute 30, and in some case many more, miles each way to minimum wage jobs, as that is the closest available employment.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 5, 2011)

This is total nonsense and will run into serious opposition


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> This is ridiculous in so many ways that I could write a novel about it. I don't have the time or interest in doing so, but talk about screwing people who live in rural areas. There are MANY people in Maine who commute 30, and in some case many more, miles each way to minimum wage jobs, as that is the closest available employment.



don't ask for mondeo's sympathy on that one.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

hammer said:


> Here we go again...a tax to set public policy that will just become an extra tax to enhance revenues...



Umm, maybe they are just looking for a way to pay for building and maintaining the roads?  It costs money to build stuff.  Do you have a better idea for funding the roads when cars are coming out that get 93 mpg (Chevy Volt)?



Riverskier said:


> This is ridiculous in so many ways that I could write a novel about it. I don't have the time or interest in doing so, but talk about screwing people who live in rural areas. There are MANY people in Maine who commute 30, and in some case many more, miles each way to minimum wage jobs, as that is the closest available employment.



Aren't they already getting screwed by paying the gas tax?  What's the difference if it's based on how many miles they drive instead of how many gallons they burn?  I know people hate change, but I don't understand the outrage.

Driving home from Saddleback on route 17 the other day I was wishing gas taxes were higher in Maine so they could rebuild that horrible road.  Someone forgot to put a foundation under it when they build that frost heaved thing.  The state should pay me by the mile for how much wear and tear it put on my suspension.


----------



## Puck it (May 5, 2011)

I would be fine with it if it replaces the gas tax, but you know it will be in addition to


----------



## wa-loaf (May 5, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> This is total nonsense and will run into serious opposition



Not to mention expensive, how much will all these GPS units and receivers costs. I bet the manufacturers of these things are behind it somewhere ...

Want to raise money for how much people drive. Tax gas ... the more you use the more you pay ... and if they are worried about electric vehicles I'm sure there is a much simpler way to measure the miles/ or electricity consumed ... *Like just checking the odometer at the annual inspection! Duh!* :where's the shoot me in the head smiley?:


----------



## TheBEast (May 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> This is ridiculous in so many ways that I could write a novel about it. I don't have the time or interest in doing so, but talk about screwing people who live in rural areas. There are MANY people in Maine who commute 30, and in some case many more, miles each way to minimum wage jobs, as that is the closest available employment.



And the senator from North Dakota introduced it no less!!

Just plain dumb.  Privacy issues written all over this.  Instead of taxes we need proposals to get people back to work and pay taxes!!


----------



## Riverskier (May 5, 2011)

speden said:


> Aren't they already getting screwed by paying the gas tax?  What's the difference if it's based on how many miles they drive instead of how many gallons they burn?  I know people hate change, but I don't understand the outrage



Good point, in one sense, if it is actually going to replace the gas tax, but I suspect that Puck It is right and that it would be in addition to the gas tax. And even if it is going to replace the gas tax, you say "What is the difference", but why the hell would you replace one system with another system that is set to accomplish the same thing? Not to mention one that would clearly be extremely costly and difficult to implement.


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

speden said:


> Umm, maybe they are just looking for a way to pay for building and maintaining the roads? It costs money to build stuff. Do you have a better idea for funding the roads when cars are coming out that get 93 mpg (Chevy Volt)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're assuming that the gas tax goes to funding road maintenance. Bad assumption.

The problem with taxing by mileage is, well, there's a lot of them. By ton-mile, ok, now you're at least correcting for actual impact on roads. Again, if you're charging purely for mile and nothing else, there's no reason not to tax bicycles and pedestrians as well, other than it would accentuate how absurd it is. Also, the federal government only has authority over roadways as they relate to interstate commerce. Yes, Court decisions over the last 200+ years have destroyed the meaning of interstate commerce, but realistically they shouldn't touch anything other than US highways and Interstates. Any driving around town shouldn't be taxed by the federal gov't, and those roads shouldn't be funded by the federal gov't. Plus people don't drive exclusively on public roads. Of the 5 miles between my house and work, 1.5 miles are on company property. What right does the government have to tax me for travelling on roads they don't fund improvements on? It's like taxing me on the work I put into making dinner if that work were to be done in a restaurant and I was the chef.

Again, back to the commerce clause, the US government has the responsibility of regulating and promoting interstate commerce. You don't need a tax based on road use to do that. In fact, it's stupid to do so, because the end effect is a negative impact on that commerce it's trying to promote. No reason not to use the income taxes currently in place to do the same thing, other than it makes for a more centralized tax collection and makes people even more aware of how much tax they're actually paying.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> Not to mention expensive, how much will all these GPS units and receivers costs. I bet the manufacturers of these things are behind it somewhere ...
> 
> Want to raise money for how much people drive. Tax gas ... the more you use the more you pay ... and if they are worried about electric vehicles I'm sure there is a much simpler way to measure the miles/ or electricity consumed ... *Like just checking the odometer at the annual inspection! Duh!* :where's the shoot me in the head smiley?:



I think implementing it would be tough.  They'd likely require all car manufacturers to begin installing some kind of odometer reading device starting with a certain model year.  It would get read and logged in some kind of database tied to the vin number.  It would need a lot of fraud prevention stuff to stop people from tapering with it, but that's probably doable.  I could see something like that adding a few bucks to the price of a new car.  For the cars on the road now I guess they'd have to come up with some kind of add on device you'd put on your dashboard or windshield, sort of like the toll transponders.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> Good point, in one sense, if it is actually going to replace the gas tax, but I suspect that Puck It is right and that it would be in addition to the gas tax. And even if it is going to replace the gas tax, you say "What is the difference", but why the hell would you replace one system with another system that is set to accomplish the same thing? Not to mention one that would clearly be extremely costly and difficult to implement.



I think the transportation departments are just looking ahead at the increased CAFE requirements and electric cars, etc. and realizing that five to ten years out, the gas tax revenues aren't going to bring in enough dough.  Implementing something like this will take years, so they're starting to lay the groundwork now.  The cost of the equipment needed is probably small relative to the amount of money it would bring in.  Constructing and hiring people for toll booths is super expensive, but that doesn't stop them from building those.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Again, if you're charging purely for mile and nothing else, there's no reason not to tax bicycles and pedestrians as well, other than it would accentuate how absurd it is. Also, the federal government only has authority over roadways as they relate to interstate commerce. Yes, Court decisions over the last 200+ years have destroyed the meaning of interstate commerce, but realistically they shouldn't touch anything other than US highways and Interstates.



Well they already have a federal gas tax (18.4 cents a gallon), so we're paying the feds for driving down rural roads already.  I don't see taxing by the mile versus taxing by the gallon as fundamentally different.  I agree it would be absurd to tax bicycles this way, but it seems like it would be a more fair way to tax cars than toll roads.  I get robbed using the Mass pike to pay for the big dig, when the real beneficiaries of it live north and south of Boston and get a free ride.



mondeo said:


> Again, back to the commerce clause, the US government has the responsibility of regulating and promoting interstate commerce. You don't need a tax based on road use to do that. In fact, it's stupid to do so, because the end effect is a negative impact on that commerce it's trying to promote. No reason not to use the income taxes currently in place to do the same thing, other than it makes for a more centralized tax collection and makes people even more aware of how much tax they're actually paying.



Any kind of sales tax like the gas tax is going to be very regressive.  The poor guy with the long commute in his old gas guzzler gets walloped when he can't afford it.  People like that would probably be taxed less if a mileage tax replaced the gas tax since they can't afford a high mileage car.

It would be less regressive to fund roads with income taxes since low income people don't pay income taxes, but I don't think that would be fair.  A lot of people live in cities and don't even drive, so why should they pay as much as someone who drives all the time and wears out the roads.  A mileage tax seems like the most fair approach since the people that use the roads would be the ones paying for them.  Granted the government will use the funds for other stuff too, but that's inevitable with any type of tax.


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

speden said:


> Well they already have a federal gas tax (18.4 cents a gallon), so we're paying the feds for driving down rural roads already. I don't see taxing by the mile versus taxing by the gallon as fundamentally different. I agree it would be absurd to tax bicycles this way, but it seems like it would be a more fair way to tax cars than toll roads. I get robbed using the Mass pike to pay for the big dig, when the real beneficiaries of it live north and south of Boston and get a free ride.


And I don't agree with the federal gas tax as a means of revenue generation to begin with. There are too many taxes to raise money that all goes into the same bucket at the end of the day, just to hide how much everyone is actually paying and to make increases more palatable. But at least it's somewhat proportional to impact on roadways, heavier cars are going to be less fuel efficient and do more damage to the road.

As part of a comprehensive energy policy, that's a different story.


----------



## Riverskier (May 5, 2011)

speden said:


> I think the transportation departments are just looking ahead at the increased CAFE requirements and electric cars, etc. and realizing that five to ten years out, the gas tax revenues aren't going to bring in enough dough.  Implementing something like this will take years, so they're starting to lay the groundwork now.  The cost of the equipment needed is probably small relative to the amount of money it would bring in.  Constructing and hiring people for toll booths is super expensive, but that doesn't stop them from building those.



Toll booths bring in revenues that don't exist without them. The government is already receiving tax revenues in the form of the gas tax. If 5-10 years down the road the current gas tax revenues aren't sufficient, then why not simply raise them? Seems easier then implementing a costly new system full of potential problems. Just curious, in what way do you think this system is potentially better than the current gas tax, as it seems we are both in agreement that they essentially accomplish the same thing?


----------



## dmc (May 5, 2011)

“This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

dmc said:


> Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..


 Under that logic, message boards would cease to exist, though.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 5, 2011)

dmc said:


> “This is not an administration proposal," White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. "This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
> 
> Everyone relax... the sky is not falling..



I had heard this as well.  That it was misinformation passed around by the right wing.


----------



## dmc (May 5, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Under that logic, message boards would cease to exist, though.



yeah..  But you know if I were president and i was in the middle of a huge budget crisis - i'd look at any an every way to increase revenue. 

thats all this is..  Another option of many...

Well that and a way to make the president look bad..


----------



## WJenness (May 5, 2011)

Agree with DMC re: not being an administration proposal and that we should relax...

However: There is a SERIOUS issue in paying for road and bridge maintenance and repairs in this country (See I-35W bridge in MN a few years ago)... 

The electric vehicle trend (Nissan Leaf) as well as other alternative fuels (CNG, etc)... those vehicles don't pay that 18.4 cents per gallon that most cars do... Yet, they still use the roads.

Something has to change.

Also, the last time the federal gas tax was raised was 1993. Almost 20 years ago. Cars are heavier AND more fuel efficient than they were in 1993... Inflicting MORE damage on the roads while generating LESS revenue. Additionally, when you account for inflation, that 18.4 cents per gallon doesn't go nearly as far as it used to.

Something's gotta change, and fast.

-w


----------



## dmc (May 5, 2011)

WJenness said:


> Something's gotta change, and fast.



How about we shift oil subsidies to renewable energy!


----------



## WJenness (May 5, 2011)

dmc said:


> How about we shift oil subsidies to renewable energy!



A great idea.

But that fixes our roads, how?

-w


----------



## dmc (May 5, 2011)

WJenness said:


> A great idea.
> 
> But that fixes our roads, how?
> 
> -w



I got nuthin...  But it would be cool... I cant WAIT to get an electric car someday..


----------



## bigbog (May 5, 2011)

Glenn said:


> A silly idea IMHO. When will the craziness stop?



Ditto...


----------



## mondeo (May 5, 2011)

WJenness said:


> Agree with DMC re: not being an administration proposal and that we should relax...
> 
> However: There is a SERIOUS issue in paying for road and bridge maintenance and repairs in this country (See I-35W bridge in MN a few years ago)...
> 
> ...


 
I'd like to see the cost-benefit that says our roads are actually underfunded. Just because a road is in bad shape doesn't mean it makes sense to repair it. If you can stretch the life of a road from 15 years to 20, does the 33% reduction in construction costs manifest itself in equal or greater combined road and car maintenance over that 5 year period? How much do we have to spend, nationally, on bridge repair to make the failure rate 1 in 40 years, 1 in 20 years, 1 in 10, and does that offset the costs of those bridge failures?

Really not worried about a bridge failure now and then, or a few extra potholes to get patched. Ever play SimCity? The whole issue reminds me of the highway department advisor. You'd increase the funding by 2x, then cut it by 25%, and all of a sudden the sky is falling.


----------



## riverc0il (May 5, 2011)

You can see the appeal of this from the politician side.... what politician that values their seat is going to push for a higher gas tax? But the gas tax already exists and it would be far more efficient and make far more sense to just increase the gas tax. 

Taxing by mile is unfair to those with long commutes or those of us that support the economy by driving long distances to recreate (or those that drive long distances to visit family, travel, vacation, etc.). It makes it so that there is no incentive to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles (and it increases taxes because more efficient vehicles contribute less through the gas tax, again you can see why government might be pro mile tax). 

You could say that folks that drive more distance impact the road infrastructure more. But that would be incorrect. The roads are most impacted by heavy vehicles. How about a progressive tax by mile effecting trailers, trucks, and SUVs more severely than cars? You would have to do that if you propose a per mile tax to support road ways (in a far way). 

Those that travel more should contribute more but the gas tax already does that within reason. It penalizes those that have less efficient vehicles. But I don't see anything wrong with that as that is a personal decision and those that can afford lower MPG vehicles can certainly afford a little extra tax as the cheapest vehicles are often the most efficient.


----------



## speden (May 5, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> Toll booths bring in revenues that don't exist without them. The government is already receiving tax revenues in the form of the gas tax. If 5-10 years down the road the current gas tax revenues aren't sufficient, then why not simply raise them? Seems easier then implementing a costly new system full of potential problems. Just curious, in what way do you think this system is potentially better than the current gas tax, as it seems we are both in agreement that they essentially accomplish the same thing?



The potential I see is that it's something that would be easier to administer and maintain in the long run.  With oil already starting to run out, other fuels are going to be entering the picture.  People want to move away from using Saudi black gold.  There's going to be more use of stuff like natural gas to fuel trucks and buses, plug in electric hybrids, bio fuels, or who knows what in ten years.  A simple gas tax will be harder to collect when not everyone is using gas.  Then they'd have to figure out a fair way to tax electricity, natural gas, etc. when it's also used for heating and appliances.  It would be hard to do.

How about the guy recharging his car with solar panels on his roof, should he get free use of the roads while some low income people get hammered by a raised gas tax on some cast off beater they drive.  With a use tax like a per mile tax, you can also know who you're taxing and what kind of vehicle you're taxing.  You can apply a different tax rate for heavier vehicles, or give tax breaks to low income people.  With the current gas tax, you have no idea who or what is using the gas, so everything gets hit equally.  They tax diesel higher than regular gas because they want to hit truckers, but some cars run on diesel so they are an unintended victim of the gas sales tax.  That kind of thing could be avoided with a mileage tax.

I'm not saying they should go this route, but I think if someone told me it was my job to figure out how to fund the roads and bridges for the next 25 years, a mileage tax might look like the best option.


----------



## Glenn (May 6, 2011)

speden said:


> I think the transportation departments are just looking ahead at the increased CAFE requirements and electric cars, etc. and realizing that five to ten years out, the gas tax revenues aren't going to bring in enough dough.  Implementing something like this will take years, so they're starting to lay the groundwork now.  The cost of the equipment needed is probably small relative to the amount of money it would bring in.  Constructing and hiring people for toll booths is super expensive, but that doesn't stop them from building those.



This. 

Well, sorta. I don't think we'll see a lot of electric cars 5-10 years out. Maybe a million or two. Hybrids have been out for 10 years...and they're still 1% or less of the population..but I'm getting off track. 

The Government is greedy. The government is a large monopoly. (Think about that the next time they go after a private company for not having any competition. Who does the goverment have for competition?) They're seeing less use of gasoline as a double edged sword. If we use less gas, there's less revenue. In perfect world, the government would properly allocate funds from the gasoline tax to fix roads. I can't figure out how the hell they can take a cut from the billions of gallons sold in the US...and we still have crumbling roads. First order of business should be properly allocating the funds. I think that would go a long way in regards to getting our roads up to snuff. 

Electric cars are neat, but I think right now, they're more of a novelty. I think we've got a long way to go before we can start using electric cars outside of an urban environment. And remember kids...these things take time to develop. You can throw a few billion dollars at problem, but that doesn't mean someone is going to come out with game changing iPadesque version of an electric car in 16 months. 

Love it or hate it, our society is mobile. Not everyone can walk to work, or take a train, or carpool, or ride a bike or whathaveyou. And not everyone (myself included) has any desire to live in the city.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2011)

Glenn said:


> This.
> I can't figure out how the hell they can take a cut from the billions of gallons sold
> 
> Answer:
> ...


----------



## mondeo (May 6, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> The SS problem really started back in the 80's when the THEN power structure decided to Borrow the SS trust fund $$ for Tax cuts an dthen again in the mid 90's when we had a surplus in hand from the Dot com run up , OUR congress refused to RESTORE the $$ to the Trust Fund
> 
> So in essence this issue was Birthed in the 80's


Nah, the SS and medicare problem started at its birth, when the age of retirement wasn't indexed to life expectancy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

If the retirement age now was 77, there wouldn't be an issue. Also, the philosophy that it's part of a retirement plan instead of welfare for those who can't otherwise afford to retire and can't work.

Any other tangents here we can find?


----------



## wa-loaf (May 6, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Nah, the SS and medicare problem started at its birth, when the age of retirement wasn't indexed to life expectancy.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
> 
> ...



The lengthening life expectancy is due more to fewer deaths among infants and children, than people actually living that much longer.


----------



## mondeo (May 6, 2011)

wa-loaf said:


> The lengthening life expectancy is due more to fewer deaths among infants and children, than people actually living that much longer.


Ok, index it to life expectancy of those reaching adulthood. It would still be a couple years higher, which is a big difference.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

The trend is pretty linear. Projecting back to 1935 and forward to 2011, the age of retirement now should be 71.5 instead of 67. If you figure 30% of the people in that gap would continue working until 71.5, that's abot a 3% increase in tax base as well. Huge, huge difference on the balance sheet.

I'm still haven't figured out the idea behind paying for the previous generation's retirement so your kids can pay for yours. Oh, wait. It's called a Ponzi scheme. Got it.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Nah, the SS and medicare problem started at its birth, when the age of retirement wasn't indexed to life expectancy.
> 
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
> 
> ...



Pretty radical concept Mondy -- oh i forgot  you are NOT there yet  - sorry


----------



## mondeo (May 6, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Pretty radical concept Mondy -- oh i forgot you are NOT there yet - sorry


You're right, I'm not there yet. I'm the one the ones that are at the last layer of the Ponzi scheme before it implodes.

Obviously, it would have to be phased in. You couldn't just tell people that are 65 years old that, nope, not gonna get benefits in 2 years, it will be 6. Make it so people that are 50 now get a retirement age of 70, people that are 40 retire at 75, those at 30 don't get anything. Or something to that effect, giving people time to adjust their retirement plans accordingly. One of these threads I had a riots in the streets comment. This is one of the things we need a riot over.

But this is the reaction that will cause nothing to be done with Social Security. People that are on it or soon to be on it will think just because it gets phased out for those born in 1980 or later means they'll take the hit, so panic sets in and any congressman from Florida votes no against it.

Nobody under 35 that I know thinks they'll get Social Security in a meaningful way anyways. Why not just make it official now, and be done with it? The longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2011)

mondeo said:


> You're right, I'm not there yet. I'm the one the ones that are at the last layer of the Ponzi scheme before it implodes.
> 
> Obviously, it would have to be phased in. You couldn't just tell people that are 65 years old that, nope, not gonna get benefits in 2 years, it will be 6. Make it so people that are 50 now get a retirement age of 70, people that are 40 retire at 75, those at 30 don't get anything. Or something to that effect, giving people time to adjust their retirement plans accordingly. One of these threads I had a riots in the streets comment. This is one of the things we need a riot over.
> 
> ...


----------



## bvibert (May 6, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Nobody under 35 that I know thinks they'll get Social Security in a meaningful way anyways. Why not just make it official now, and be done with it? The longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets.



I'm almost 34 and certainly not expecting to get anything out of it.


----------



## hammer (May 6, 2011)

Hasn't the retirement age been creeping up?  I know for me the age is 67 for "normal" SS benefits.


----------



## Warp Daddy (May 6, 2011)

In 2037 the SS Trust Fund  IF UNCHANGED will pay out 78 % of the current benefits -- so it's there Brian.

The political will to enact serious radical change is NOT there yet due primarily to the fallout from the Demographic Wave  from both sides of the aisle  who vote .

 Moreover the potential shortfall of 401's and other DBR's  to provide the resources MAY be an issue for many so SOME form of additional security is needed .

Ryan's plan is running into some serious resistance in some KEY GOP district special elections that heretofore should have been a LoCK .I'mwatching one such action in NYS 

But  having heard this for several iterations in the 70's  80's , mid 90's and again now  this argument is always raised in difficult recessionery  times . It resonates with some but not the majority of voters.

I believe  that this recession will be a slow recovery BUT we will recover and hopefully rethink our role as the world's police force which has ratched up the resource requirement geometrically to maintain that choice .  

At any rate  we are living in interesting times and will no doubt see some modifications to the Trust . The question is will Domestic Issues Trump Foreign Affairs concern and to what extent and at what cost in both real and psychological terms .

have at it


----------



## Cannonball (May 6, 2011)

I have my car jacked up right now and spinning in reverse Ferris Bueller style.  By the time this bill gets passed I'll have earned enough negative miles to get a huge tax reimbursement and retire.


----------



## darent (May 8, 2011)

dmc said:


> yeah..  But you know if I were president and i was in the middle of a huge budget crisis - i'd look at any an every way to increase revenue.
> 
> thats all this is..  Another option of many...
> 
> Well that and a way to make the president look bad..



how come the first thought is always to raise revenue, how about reducing spending. If my finances go into the red that is my first thought, reduce spending!


----------



## darent (May 8, 2011)

Warp Daddy said:


> Glenn said:
> 
> 
> > This.
> ...


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2011)

mondeo said:


> You're right, I'm not there yet. I'm the one the ones that are at the last layer of the Ponzi scheme before it implodes.
> 
> Nobody under 35 that I know thinks they'll get Social Security in a meaningful way anyways. Why not just make it official now, and be done with it? The longer we wait, the bigger the problem gets.





Warp Daddy said:


> Pretty radical concept Mondy -- oh i forgot  you are NOT there yet  - sorry





Warp Daddy said:


> Dark and Grim analysis Mondy - You'd have loved Thomas Malthus


Nothing dark and grim about it Warp, mondeo is right on. 32 here and expecting to contribute significantly my entire life and get jack crap back. I don't call it a ponzi scheme--the problem is that the program was put into place without controls for the current situation happening nor the future situation which is about to get a whole lot worse. Those that wrote the regulations for SS were concerned about those currently alive, not those born beyond the the last third of the century. It is a good idea, poorly executed. And it doesn't help that the surplus has been raided for Medicare/Medicaid all these years instead of compounding. That would be like taking money out of your 401k everytime you had a medical problem instead of finding a different way to pay for it.

Obviously, age has a lot of influence regarding someone's perception of SS. I don't hear anyone in later adulthood complaining about it and I don't know anyone my age that likes the current situation. By my generation will suffer financially and the reason is simple: the only way to fix SS is to decrease benefits or increase payments. No politician is going to vote for that type of proposal... at least not until it is too late (i.e. when the generation I belong to attains a certain age and the system is broke any ways).


----------

