Marty Rosenzweig: Looking over the 'fiscal cliff'

First, I wish you all a Happy Hanukkah. I’m sure President Obama, Rep. John Boehner, and Sens. Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid all get complimentary copies of the Steamboat Pilot & Today, so I ask that they please read this commentary before moving on to the often humorous and occasionally hilarious Record.

As I peer into the somewhat overhyped abyss, I am acutely aware that about half the electorate in the recent election thinks the rich should pay more and entitlements should be pretty much untouched. The other half of the voters think the rich pay enough taxes and entitlements should be cut. Now, a possible solution could employ the unusual but potentially effective method of “compromise.”

However, after many years of negotiating and compromising, I have come to understand that the result of the compromise does not leave the parties feeling happy. Rather, it accomplishes just the opposite — everyone will be unhappy. You negotiate a reduction in your rent increase. You are unhappy you have to pay more, and the landlord resents he’s not getting as much as thinks he deserves. That’s the way it is, Washington. Get over it. Because there are no winners, losing won’t be so traumatic.

On the revenue side, tax rates for the wealthy will have to go up. As for just closing loopholes? Well, loopholes are anomalies in the tax code by which (generally) the wealthy can avoid paying some taxes. However, the mortgage interest deduction, which will affect the middle class too, also has to go because it discriminates against renters. I am personally familiar with a tax accountant who has made a small fortune exploiting these loopholes for his wealthy clients, in various shades of gray. We all hate to pay taxes, but apparently the wealthy really hate it because they’re willing to pay him a ton of money to avoid paying a ton and a quarter in income tax. It’s like dessert comes and you get an oatmeal cookie and they get a double portion of mud pie with two scoops of ice cream, whipped cream and a cherry. “You know you’re going to have to give up that cherry.” “Noooo, that’s the best part!” Let’s close the loopholes and then talk about rates.

On the entitlement side, Social Security is easier to fix. It was meant to be a safety net, not a retirement plan. So, as we have been living longer, it makes sense to slowly raise the retirement age and end the annual cap on contributions. I can do without a few of those Social Security bucks each month, if necessary. It won’t be the end of the world, really. Younger wage earners need to learn about saving for their retirement, as unthinkable as it might be to replace that iPhone every two years instead of semiannually. But seriously, it can be financially stressful, but the miracle of conservative investing and compound interest is worth pursuing (even at current rates).

Medicare is more difficult because the procedures and drugs we have to keep us healthier longer are costing way more than what we contributed. It’s also much harder to distribute the cost burden because it’s difficult to know how much we’ll be taking advantage of those expensive options as we age. More means testing will help, but I do have an additional solution. I propose that the estate of the deceased reimburse Medicare for the dollar amount of services rendered above and beyond what was contributed. First, as it does now, the estate would transfer to the spouse (yep, straight or gay) without penalty. Then there would be a certain amount exempt before the estate would pay back Medicare. No estate? You don’t owe anything (wealthy folks are down to one scoop of ice cream). This also would help start the emotional but necessary dialogue about “end of life” decisions. There is not an infinite fountain of money for keeping us alive. If you have the financial means to transplant a new heart into 95-year-old Grandma, go for it. Estate inheritance taxes will have to be left for future debate.

It’s also time for leaders of the free world to stop all this posturing in public. When our leaders sit down to negotiate, they may then have to defend a position on which they’d like to compromise but fear the wrath of their primary opponent in the next election cycle labeling them as a flip-flopper, traitor to their party, etc. As an example, moderate Republicans got torn to shreds in many primaries, as if compromise (there’s that word again) is a mortal sin. Democrats are not immune but seem less dogmatic. I know, “core values,” yada, yada, yada.

Obama, where is your entitlement modification plan? Boehner, tear up that stupid “no tax increase” pledge.

Finally, in the immortal words of Chet Powers: “Come on people now, smile on your brother; everybody get together, try to love one another, right now.”

Marty Rosenzweig is a Steamboat Springs resident, U.S. taxpayer and Medicare and Social Security recipient.

Comments

mark hartless 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I always thought that was a most beautiful song.

Love is but a song we sing fears' the way we die You can make the mountains ring or make the angels cry

Though the dove is on the wing and you may not know why

*Come on people now smile on your brother everybody get together and try to love one another right now

Some may come and some may go He will surely pass When the one that left us here returns for us at last We are but a moment's sunlight fading in the grass

*Come on people now smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now

*Come on people now smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now

*Come on people now smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now

If you hear the song I sing you will understand...listen You hold the key to love and fear all in your trembling hand Just one key unlocks them both Its there at your command

*Come on people now smile on your brother Everybody get together try to love one another right now

0

Michelle Hale 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Love that song to Mark. I was raised people are only as strong as we stand for each other. United we stand, divided we fall. Or, what this nations "de facto" once was. E. Plurbis Unm (out of many one.) What is overlooked is simple. We are paying for 10 years of WAR DEBIT, and the first time in history that there WAS NOT an increase in taxes to pay for it. We are paying for deregulation on the banks, and morgage companies bottom line is we are paying for GREED. I am offended by the idea that Social Security is an "entitlement" BS!! We all paided into it and for it, take a look as to who as double dipped it. Compassion for our fellow man cost's nothing in most peoples world, but may mean the world to someone else. Greed on the other hand effects everything and everyone. Take a look around and tell me thats not true.

0

mark hartless 5 months, 2 weeks ago

I have taken a look around. A serious, long, painful look. I guess I don't see greed as the central problem. When people step beyond their greed and harm their fellow man that's wrong, but greed alone doesn't automatically cause that to happen. In a purely secular or capitalist sense, greed helps people more than it hurts people.

Greed causes farmers in California to plant, harvest and ship vegetables to hungry people all over the world at reasonable prices.

The desire for your money (greed) causes Safeway to put food on the shelf for you to eat.

Ranchers don't ride fences, bale hay and feed in -30 degree weather out of their love for their fellow man, they do it for profit... their greed is what motivates them.

Greed ensures there is gas at the pump, food on the shelf, electricity in the wires, tunes on your radio, water in your pipes, etc.

Greed has fed more hungry, clothed more people, sheltered more people, lifted more people out of poverty, etc than charity and government programs ever, ever, ever will. It's not even a close race.

0

rhys jones 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Mark -- Your last post makes more sense if you substitute "need" for "greed."

Cheerio!!

0

mark hartless 5 months, 2 weeks ago

Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Rockerfeller, Vanderbilt, etc, provided common men with innovative, life-changing, time saving products LONG AFTER they were rich and didn't "NEED" the money.

They could have quit when their "NEEDS" were satisfied and lived richly, it would have been the rest of the world that would have suffered.

Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars Bill Gates has given to help the poor around the world. Does anyone think that would have happened if he hadn't first had the ambition to EARN way more than he "NEEDED?

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.