Solving the fiscal cliff is no big deal

According to Sen Harry Reid we are going over the “cliff” because the Republicans are not cooperating. By that I assume they are not doing what the Democrats want. Republicans are no better of course.

All these fiscal problems can be solved and quite easily. They need to be broken down into short-term and long-term issues. Some portion of the deficit will be taken care of with time when the economy improves and federal revenue automatically increases.

The Social Security tax holiday needs to be terminated because it is adding to the deficit on a daily basis. This can be done gradually to minimize the impact, perhaps a quarter percent every three months.

Likewise the tax on capital gains can gradually be increased over two to three years until it reaches regular income tax levels. Dividends on the other hand represent income to millions of Americans who are not wealthy and should remain at 15%.

While I continue to believe increasing income taxes is a losing proposition if you are looking to lower the deficit, if for no other reason than perception, taxes will go up. Given that, raise tax rates on household income above $500,000 a year. However, keep in mind that Congress will simply spend the additional revenue so all we have accomplished is more wealth transfer.

Some deductions make sense others do not. Starting at some future date say 2018 there should be a gradual reduction in the amount of mortgage interest that can be deducted. Likewise over time we should reach a cap on the amount of tax-free income from employer contributions toward health Insurance. At the same time the ability for workers to pay their share of premiums on a pre-tax basis should be phased out.

The key to all this is the gradual future phase in of the changes. This will give people time to adjust and time for the economy to recover.

Both Medicare and Social Security need to be modified in the future to allow them to not add to the deficit. Yes, this means in the future Americans will get a little less and pay a little more which should all be indexed.

The Social Security COLA must change. We must switch to chained inflation, increase the actuarial reduction for benefits that begin before normal retirement age and gradually and modestly raise the payroll tax over several years. In addition, the COLA should be eliminated in the future for those collecting the maximum Social Security benefit. No COLA should apply to anyone during the first five years of collecting a benefit.

Medicare cannot continue simply by cutting payments to providers. The benefit structure needs to be overhauled including more realistic deductibles and more realistic premiums for all beneficiaries. A renewed attack on fraud and abuse is all well and good, but better utilization management is equally important. There needs to be more oversight of the services provided, greater application of medical necessity and utilization review. Medicare payroll taxes must increase gradually if Americans want what they perceive Medicare to be because the fundamental problem for the federal government is not the cost of health care for each beneficiary, but the growing number of beneficiaries.

Having said all the above, the real key is reduced spending. We can do all we want on the revenue side and accomplish nothing if current and future spending is not managed to revenue levels and what Americans are willing to pay in taxes.

Every new spending proposal can be rationalized by some group, every new program helps someone and that’s the problem; spending can always be justified even when it is not affordable. As long as Americans demand more and ignore how it will be paid for these fiscal problems will continue in one form or another.

8 comments

  1. Those of us fortunate to be in higher brackets should keep paying Social Security tax. Rather than have it stop at a certain level, why not tax all earnings?

    Deacon Peter Cistaro

    Like

  2. Dick,

    I think your proposals are pretty much right on. Although I am on the Democratic and more liberal side of the aisle, I agree with just about everything you wrote. We need a balanced approach that recognizes need, yet protects the country’s long term economic health. What has occurred over the past 11 years has destroyed that health. We must start with an honest assesment of what we can and cannot afford. We could not afford a war and at the same time a cut in taxes. Economics 101 tells us that, yet Bush did exactly that. That reality created the economic quagmire Obama inherited. He then proceeded to do serious harm by some of his actions, but I expect that without them we would have found ourselves in much worse shape. Now with the economy showing some improvment we need to take a more responsible approach and so what you have laid out I think could bring us a long way to an improved economy without socially or economic disastrous consequences. If only those in Congress would accept that there can be reasoned compromise and rule out the absolutes in so much of their language and idealogy. Making a statement that we cannot ever raise taxes is a faulted approach. We must raise taxes on the wealthiest of individuals as they prospered much with the Bush tax cuts and now that time is past and a new reality dictates that they need to put more into the pie. The working poor can ill afford to be subjected to any further tax increases but they will be punished if congress chooses not to act and ultimately we all will be hurt, both rich and poor, if the world sees the major economic force unable to govern because of the stubborn approach of a relative minority. The people voted to place their vote with Obama and thereby rejected the Tea Party stance. It is time for the to act in accord with the majority.

    ONe mans opinion!

    BB

    Like

  3. Thanks for your suggestions on a solution. Unfortunately, it is no better nor worse than others proposed in the past – like the changes in 1983, which became law and supposedly saved Social Security and Medicare (just 30 years ago), or the changes in the mid-1990’s which were the first to try to address the demographic challenge of our entitlements.

    You propose:
    -Eliminate the 2% FICA tax holiday,
    -Increasing the tax on capital gains, while favoring dividends, which is just another form of income for the exact same individuals who own the same shares of stock (?),
    -Raise income taxes even though you believe it is a losing proposition,
    -Cap tax preferences on certain items that perhaps are not of as much value to those who already own their home or those who no longer receive employer sponsored health coverage (older, non-working folks).
    – Expand the 1983 changes to further raise normal retirement age and reduce early retirement benefits, while further adjusting the COLA,
    Your last point is the only valid one. That is, benefits should be capped by the amount people are willing to fund. And, comparably, there should be some relationship between the amount people are taxed and the amount people receive.
    Else, call it a means tested form of welfare, because that is what it is rapidly evolving into

    Like

    1. I never said raise normal retirement age. And while all the ideas are not unique, how does that make them invalid? Making all the adjustments necessary over a period of years deals with the growing liability and limits the immediate adverse impact on a fragile economy. On the other hand no steps taken to lower liabilities or costs will matter if they keep being offset by new spending.

      Like

      1. It doesn’t make them invalid, only insufficient.

        Again, benefits should be capped by the amount people are willing to fund. And, comparably, there should be some relationship between the amount people are taxed and the amount people receive.

        Else, call it a means tested form of welfare, because that is what it is rapidly evolving into

        Like

      1. No, however, the only other substantial group are the Medicaid beneficiaries and the soon-to-exist state based exchange participants. The individual insurance market is withering quickly, and will be dramatically less in 2014.

        Again, I have no qualms about adjusting taxes – I just believe you have to start with those who are receiving the windfall today – such as those Americans who receive Rx coverage where they funded little if any of the expense. Why we would target employer sponsored plans … when they did not create the deficits/debts…

        Like

Leave a Reply