老钱：美国大选，选谁？(三) 总统竞选辩论

这两个福利现在是有盈余，将来不够可以通过很多方法解决，比如这2.9%的税率并不是固定的，福利也可以减少，或者将来medicare的收入只能满足80-90%的话，也可以用联邦的钱补助，因为现在medicare多余的钱都被联邦政府用掉了，那么将来不够时由政府补贴也是理所应当的。

Medicare Part　A的税收和福利都经过一个称为HI　Trust的特别基金管理。但这个基金只是起到记账的作用，真正的钱还是联邦财政经手的，也计入当年联邦收支总数中。更重要的是，法律并无规定当这个基金入不敷出时会怎么办，而是由国会到那时再决定。根据基金管理方的预计，HI　Trust将在２０１６年用光储蓄而进入入不敷出的状态。但这不等于Medicare的破产，而只影响到Part　A的运作。而即使是Part　A，在最坏情况下，政府不提供额外资助，HI　Trust只靠当年收入来支付福利的话，尚可维持７５％到８０％的福利。而政治上说，更可能的情况是政府提供补助而维持目前的福利水平。

引用第20楼游客于2012-10-06 08:50发表的  :

Here is some facts about Medicare, according to this CNN article, "Analysts at the Urban Institute calculate that lifetime Medicare benefits will be worth over $500,000 for a mid-career couple today" (http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/02/ ... ml?iid=HP_Highlight). Now assume a couple earns $200,000/year (that's very high for most people) and worked for 40 years. at 2.9% Medicare tax rate, that would be $232,000, Less than half of the expected payout. For a low income family, the gap would be even bigger! Anyone who has a financial sense would agree that this is unsustainable. Can you just do it by cutting doctors and hospital payment? No. if you cut the payment in half, I am sure most doctors will not see any Medicare patient since the payment will be below their cost. So the other way is to cut benefit which is not popular. Obama is exploiting this without telling the truth about the future cost!

The only reason both SS and Medicare had surplus before is because the baby boomers.  Their large number of poeple are supporting a much smaller retirees.  Now, the baby boomers are starting to retire, the funding gap is going to show and will get worse each year.  Any responsible person and any person who cares about the country's future, cares about our future generation will have to take this issue seriously.  We can't continue to rob our future generation for the confort of ourselves.  The best solution I can see is the sacrifice from everyone of us.  We just can't afford these program as it is.  We need to reduce the benefit to half or double everyone's contribution.  As Lao Qian put it, "就是把富豪都抢了，分了，仍然解决不了这个问题。"  Even you tax the rich at 100%, you still will not solve this problem.  it is because the country doesn't have that many rich people to be taxed.  On the other hand, if you do tax rich too much, they either stop working/invest (they have eoungh asset and don't need to work/invest anyway) or they will put the money in other country.

35%只是对你多余38万的收入的税率，并不是对所有收入的税率，所以他们的 total marginal tax rate并不是35%。美国最发达的六七十年代，最高税率是70-90%, 而那时却是美国的golden years.

引用第21楼游客于2012-10-06 09:15发表的  :
Another thought, what is the fare tax rate?  Everyone is entitled his/her own opinions.  I am sure most of us think that our tax rates are too high.  Then a quite few of us think the top tax rates are too low for the high income earners.  
The top tax rate for 2012 is at 35%.  If you add 6% GA income tax and 1.45% medicare tax (SS tax is no longer apply here).  Quite a few of those high income families are small business owners, they have to pay employer portion of Medicare tax.  So the total marginal tax rate would be about 44%.  Next year, Obama care will add 4% on these incomes.  If Bush’s tax cut expires, the top rate will be roll back to 39%, another 4% extra.  So the top rate could be 52%. For every dollar a small business owner earns after all the overhead etc, he/she has to pay 52c to the government and keep 48c.  What kind of incentive he/she has to work hard and earn more?  That also creates an incentive to hide/shift income.
Now, as someone would like to tax the capital gain the same way as income, how many investors would take the risk to get that kind of return?  A regular income is guaranteed income as long as you put your work in.  But investment income is not guaranteed and it could be lost over night.  So you really tax the investment income at the same level as regular income without shutting out investor’s incentive.
Simply taxing high income earner and taxing rich is not a viable solution.  

引用第23楼游客于2012-10-06 10:02发表的  :
35%只是对你多余38万的收入的税率，并不是对所有收入的税率，所以他们的 total marginal tax rate并不是35%。美国最发达的六七十年代，最高税率是70-90%, 而那时却是美国的golden years.

Do you know what a marginal tax meant?  Please check this http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MarginalTaxRates.html before you argue about it.  The main reason for the high growth rate after the world war II, is Jus world war II.  you always has high growth rate after a major war.  It even happens in communist USSR and China!

假如最高税率加其他才是52%，那说什么每赚一块钱要缴52分税？

引用第23楼游客于2012-10-06 10:02发表的  :
35%只是对你多余38万的收入的税率，并不是对所有收入的税率，所以他们的 total marginal tax rate并不是35%。美国最发达的六七十年代，最高税率是70-90%, 而那时却是美国的golden years.

难道只有小业主的钱是辛苦赚来的，人上班的工资就不辛苦？

引用第21楼游客于2012-10-06 09:15发表的  :
Another thought, what is the fare tax rate?  Everyone is entitled his/her own opinions.  I am sure most of us think that our tax rates are too high.  Then a quite few of us think the top tax rates are too low for the high income earners.  
The top tax rate for 2012 is at 35%.  If you add 6% GA income tax and 1.45% medicare tax (SS tax is no longer apply here).  Quite a few of those high income families are small business owners, they have to pay employer portion of Medicare tax.  So the total marginal tax rate would be about 44%.  Next year, Obama care will add 4% on these incomes.  If Bush’s tax cut expires, the top rate will be roll back to 39%, another 4% extra.  So the top rate could be 52%. For every dollar a small business owner earns after all the overhead etc, he/she has to pay 52c to the government and keep 48c.  What kind of incentive he/she has to work hard and earn more?  That also creates an incentive to hide/shift income.
Now, as someone would like to tax the capital gain the same way as income, how many investors would take the risk to get that kind of return?  A regular income is guaranteed income as long as you put your work in.  But investment income is not guaranteed and it could be lost over night.  So you really tax the investment income at the same level as regular income without shutting out investor’s incentive.
Simply taxing high income earner and taxing rich is not a viable solution.  

业主的钱可用來僱人创造就业。

引用第26楼游客于2012-10-06 14:51发表的  :
难道只有小业主的钱是辛苦赚来的，人上班的工资就不辛苦？

yes, if you are earning at marginal tax rate of 35%, then you or you and your wife either work very hard or very smart and very likely both.  However, it is still very different from a small business owner.  You only need worry about your job.  A small business owner has to worry about much more then a wage earner.  He needs worry about revenue steam, worry about inventory, worry about employees (someone like Dr. Liu who was blogging while working), worry about other overheads such like renting cost, repair and maintenance, and investing in new equipment or technology etc.  It is quite common for a business to have over 60% overhead (a lot of are more than that).  Let just consider a 66% overhead, a small business owner has to earn every $3 to earn $1.  The government will take 50c or more out of that in tax.  So he/she only earn 50c for every $3 revenue.  If you increase the marginal rate higher, what is the incentive for him/her to expand business?  Without business owners to expend his/her business, where your wage earners job?

Remember, no matter how hard a wage earner works, he doesn't create jobs.  Business owners do!  Government don't create wealth, it just shift wealth from one part of the society to the other!

Remember, no matter how hard a wage earner works, he doesn't create jobs directly.  Business owners do!  

I am not investing right now. I can hire more people, but not worth the headache and tax.

Remember, no matter how hard a wage earner works, he doesn't create jobs directly.  Business owners do!  

I am not investing right now. I can hire more people, but not worth the headache and tax.

Please come and kill me and get my money like Chairman Mao did to the 1% in China.

没有消费者最终消费，不管大小公司都活不下去，business能雇人能赚钱最后都靠广大消费者，而其中大部分是中产和低收入者。

引用第30楼游客于2012-10-06 16:33发表的  :
Remember, no matter how hard a wage earner works, he doesn't create jobs directly.  Business owners do!  

I am not investing right now. I can hire more people, but not worth the headache and tax.

Please come and kill me and get my money like Chairman Mao did to the 1% in China.