And another thing
Here's one other interesting detail from the CBO report (link to original post):
Update: Regarding the first comment on this post, my point here was basically meant to be tongue in cheek. As the title of the earlier post suggests, I don't think anyone should treat these numbers as anything more than the blip-on-the-screen that they are. That said, I disagree with strategery4's second point as a general claim. It depends on whether the higher payroll tax receipts are due only to (say) increased labor supply, or instead to increased productivity. If it's productivity, then the whole wage profile shifts up, and the long-run picture will improve (at least, over the kind of finite horizon that we usually consider).
Regarding the second comment, I think the SCOTUS stuff will totally doom any SS legislation. I've also worried since last Friday that it will suck all the air out of any nascent (ok, that word suggests wishful thinking) move toward a coherent reform platform for the Dems ahead of '06. On the other hand, these guys are so bad at politics that maybe having everyone else's attention focused on an isssue like the Court isn't so bad.
Social insurance receipts were about $39 billion, or 7 percent, higher in the first nine months of 2005 than in the comparable period last year, primarily because of gains in withheld payroll taxes of about $34 billion, or 7 percent.Two thoughts:
- If Republicans are going to act like the increase in income-tax revenues is a permanent feature, then they ought to be held to it when it comes to Social Security taxes: surely they will update their projections of imminent financial collapse for the SS system
- Pay attention to whether your favorite
mainstream media sources note the increase in social insurance receipts. If they don't write a letter to the editor asking why their coverage is skewed (and better yet, why it is so focused on short-run swings in any revenue source).
Update: Regarding the first comment on this post, my point here was basically meant to be tongue in cheek. As the title of the earlier post suggests, I don't think anyone should treat these numbers as anything more than the blip-on-the-screen that they are. That said, I disagree with strategery4's second point as a general claim. It depends on whether the higher payroll tax receipts are due only to (say) increased labor supply, or instead to increased productivity. If it's productivity, then the whole wage profile shifts up, and the long-run picture will improve (at least, over the kind of finite horizon that we usually consider).
Regarding the second comment, I think the SCOTUS stuff will totally doom any SS legislation. I've also worried since last Friday that it will suck all the air out of any nascent (ok, that word suggests wishful thinking) move toward a coherent reform platform for the Dems ahead of '06. On the other hand, these guys are so bad at politics that maybe having everyone else's attention focused on an isssue like the Court isn't so bad.
posted by Jonah B. Gelbach at 8:10 PM
2 Comments:
Intelligent comments aroung this place. Makes me worry about bringing down the level of discourse by weighing in, but here goes. Do you guys think the Supreme court drawing the press like flies (and if what you say about two retirements ... ) makes it more or less likely a Social Security reform bill will come to a vote. I can't decide. It's an opportunity to let reform die as attention moves elsewhere and it's also an opportunity to proeed without much scrutiny. And there are probably lots of considerations I haven't noted. Press coverage has been nil, and with today, I don't expect the press to devote much to what they might see as a dying story.
Mark--thanks for the compliment. Especially given the high quality of your site....see my discussion of your question in the update above. I hope you'll keep reading.
Post a Comment
<< Home