Saturday, January 03, 2009
The politically impossible TigerHawk plan for fixing the economy
I am not an expert in any of economics, tax policy, investing, public policy, politics, sociology, health care finance, actuarial science, wizardry, or any of the other disciplines in which expertise is necessary to propose suitably credentialed ideas for solving America's economic crisis. I am, however, the chief financial officer of a public company, a semi-retired corporate lawyer, experienced in investing my own money since the age of 15 or so (around 1977), and more interested in policy debates than most amateurs. With that hedged disclaimer, herewith the Politically Impossible TigerHawk Plan For Fixing the Economy of the United States (ref. the original Official TigerHawk Tax Proposal of four years ago, much of which remains a good idea for the long term).
Housing
We need to soften the landing for the housing market in the short term, prevent a future bubble in the long term, and ween Americans from the idea that one's house is a retirement nest egg over the long term. My plan (I sound like a politician!) is to create an enormous incentive for rich people and banks to bail out the people with underwater mortgages, and then prevent the problem from coming back.
Taxes
From the Official TigerHawk Tax Proposal I would immediately implement the reforms to drive corporate investment and the repatriation of foreign profits:
Long-term fiscal and economic health
If there is one thing that ought to be clear to everybody, the United States has been and will be incurring massive liabilities at a very rapid clip in the next few years, and we have done nothing about the long tail obligations that will crush the standard of living of people who are under 30 today (and who are not, in the main, responsible for the unwise personal and political choices of the people who are between 40 and 70 today). We need to send a strong, credible signal to the world's capital markets now the the United States has the political will necessary to honor Alexander Hamilton's tradition and pay back all of this debt without inflating the dollar into worthlessness, and then we have to do it. To do this, we will have to work harder as a country, work longer as individuals, and save more all along the way.
Direct stimulus
I oppose the massive stimulus program currently under discussion by our Democratic Overlords, but if it is inevitable we should hope for some governing principles. It should be transparent; all contractors and their owners should be disclosed on the web in searchable form, with links to contributions to members of Congress or Obama administration officials. The money should be allocated by merit, and speed of implementation. States with "shovel ready" plans should get funded first. The program should terminate when the economy starts to grow (measured by, say, three consecutive quarters of positive economic growth). After growth returns, continue to fund projects for which ground has been broken, but do not fund new projects. Focus on projects that are likely to drive further economic growth, such as rebuilding the electricity grid. Filling potholes faster than usual will do no good. Finally, under no circumstances give money to state governments; those that are in financial trouble have made bad choices, and the citizens of responsible states should not be forced to subsidize their folly.
Of course, I could be wrong. Release the hounds.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
37 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jan 03, 05:15:00 PM:
It has to be better than what we are currently doing. I wonder if anyone in Washington reads your Blog?
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Jan 03, 06:50:00 PM:
Turn the U.S. into a tax haven. The world's lowest tax rates. Bank secrecy. Bearer stock. With those simple steps, the money of the world will flow into the U.S. Your problems are over. The free market will take care of everything else.
With bank secrecy in a "secure America," the corrupt leaders in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East will do everything possible to keep your country--and their money--safe.
Remember, the Nazis didn't attack Switzerland because that was where they hid their personal wealth.
By , at
Sat Jan 03, 08:12:00 PM:
Four cheers for your idea that everybody should work longer. Also, there should be some serious means testing for Social Security. The way things work now, a 55 year old with a high school education is paying for the Lexus of the retired corporate VP who downsized him. How progressive is that?
I would add the following to the Tigerhawk proposal:
1. States, especially bloated Blue States like your New Jersey and my California, should stop duplicating the work of the federal government. That means no more state welfare. Let the feds take care of all that, since that seems to be the way things have evolved. Let states concentrate on jails, education, police work, etc.
2. End the War On Drugs. It's getting to be like the War of the Roses, with nothing much to show for it, except expensive prisons and a lot of cop overtime. Legalize marijuana and then tax the bejeesus out of it.
3. We need to change the twin social expectation that (a) everybody must go to college and (2) it is OK for 22 year olds to graduate with $50,000+ in debt. Private colleges tuitions have increased faster than inflation, but the value of their education has grown questionable. Vocational and credential programs should be emphasized, since they would allow high school graduates to enter the work force sooner, gain some experience, and set them up for future education. The government should get out of the business of underwriting low cost student loans. Parents should get real about what sort of education their kids can handle and what that education should accomplish, instead of blindly writing $25,000 tuition checks to Mediocre U.
4. One thing we have learned in the last decade is that we need to drastically improve the quality of the people who go into public life, whether as elected officials, judges, or whatever. It hurts me to say this, but we should substantially increase the salaries of Congress and the judiciary. Right now, we seem to only be able to attract either wealthy people who don't need to work or the sort of activists who would work for free. God forgive me, but these are elite positions, and deserve to be paid as such. To fund these pay increases, I would cut the pay of executive branch workers across the board from Cabinet Officers all the way down to the guy mowing the lawn at the Air & Space Museum. Political appointees are there for few years at most, while the expectation is that judges and congressmen serve much longer.
5. America's politicians should be ready, willing, and able to go on national television and tell Americans to grow a pair. The disasters of the last decade - the tech bubble, 9/11, the Iraq War ca. 2005-2007, Hurricane Katrina, the credit crunch - created a challenging environment. But, the whining and carping that came in their wake made matters worse. America's governing class should be able to GOVERN without also having to grovel before a querelous populace
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 03:38:00 AM:
make both dividend and interest income ordinary income (effectively raising the rates on both)
TH, interest income is ordinary income. Interest income gets no breaks from income tax like dividends and capital gains do.
Another thing to fix the economy: get rid of "smart growth". Land use restrictions are as much or more responsible for massive price volatility than cheap financing is.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 07:39:00 AM:
As long as the gov can tweak the value of money (and the cost to get your hands on it), they will - and nothing else will be able to sustain that tweaking.
As long as the gov is the bloated pile of you know what, it will continue to overload the rest of the country (and planet). Its function and size needs to shrink to reduce its load on everything else.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 07:55:00 AM:
If you truly want to show the world that we are serious about repaying our debts in real rather than inflated dollars, bring back gold. Remember that FDR forced all Americans to turn in their gold in the Depression, and didn't give it back.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Jan 04, 08:26:00 AM:
randian - doh! I knew that, too, since I did my own taxes until a couple of years ago. What were my fingers thinking?
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 08:32:00 AM:
Some very good ideas. Here's another one: seriously means test both Social Security and Medicare. By seriously, I mean consider past income history, pension assets, savings, investments and home equity. If done properly and equitably, the savings would be enormous and would send a message to our grand children that we are looking out for them.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 09:03:00 AM:
I am still at a loss as to why people who want to increase our national savings rate continue to advocate for a tax on interest income?
There is currently no incentive to save via a bank account (which is how we currently measure the national savings rate - not through investments, your 401k does not count in the savings number). By the time you factor in current low interest rates, taxes, and inflation, you are a fool to put money in a bank savings account, because you've lost money.
Sadly, our current tax code is geared toward spending, and does not reward saving.
Finally, Americans know this. We're not complete idiots. Many of us do not save because there is no incentive to save.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 09:12:00 AM:
Please do not touch my S.S. benefits by means testing. I have worked hard, intelligently, honestly, and saved.
I have paid S.S. deductions all my life. They are a major expense for me.
My measly private sector pension is small and not inflation adjusted, and provides no health benefits.
Why should I be denied S.S. benefits? S.S.is not welfare.
So, this is a non-starter.
BTW, this talk about raising the age to retire to 70 sounds good. But, I think getting the age of retirement for govt workers to 65 will be a better way to save money. Govt workers retire in their 50's. Govt pensions are a disgrace.
By Cato Renasci, at
Sun Jan 04, 09:14:00 AM:
The argument in favor of eliminating taxes on capital gains (or at least taxing capital gains at significantly lower rates than ordinary income) is that the income was already taxed when it was earned. Having been earned, when it is saved and put to work as capital over time it's essentially taxing the income again, penalizing the saver for having foregone current consumption to provide for future consumption.
If one could be certain there would be NO income or capital gains taxes, I would support some sort of VAT scheme that primarily taxed consumption. We should be encouraging citizens to forgo current consumption in favor of saving and investment. Likewise, we should encourage businesses to invest and take reasonable risks in order to ultimately increase the supply of goods and services.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 09:30:00 AM:
re: Now that you've wiped out the corporate income tax, make dividend income ordinary income (effectively raising the rates) [corrected]. Define long-term capital gains as genuinely long-term (I would say five years). The only argument for the lower rate on capital gains is inflation uncertainty, and that's fairly predictable over five years, so it can be priced into the value of the asset at acquisition. In fairness, it is less predictable over longer periods of time, so the lower rates are justified. As discussed above, allow capital losses to be deductible against ordinary income.
Way back when (1970's) they started playing with the definition of long term for capital gains. it eventually went down to 6 months. I worked for a bank/brokerage house and the result wsa much more trading trying to capture the highs, and much higher overall commissions for the brokers. My thought has been that has negatively influenced the concept of inverstment from investing for the future to trying to make a killing. Given that I would say long term should be a minimum 5 years. Force the speculators to pay for that activity and benefit the rest of us who are actually investing for our future. It would also take some of the short term pressure off of companies and possibly return to them a long term or at least longer term outlook. Not the next day/week mentality you see now.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 09:40:00 AM:
A while back I used a retirement calculator. I plugged in 7% return on savins, and 4% inflation. I found that if I saved 75% of my current salary, I wouldn't have enough to buy a McDonald's hamburger upon retirement, as inflation would have wiped me out.
So why suffer now, only to suffer later?
I posit we need some mechanism to keep the government from 'printing' more money without a concomitant increase in the value of the nation. What I mean to say is that the creation and implementation of some new idea/invention is a net increase in value of the nation from which it is sold. Just selling more T-bills is not an increase in wealth, but a direct decrease in the value of dollars held.
I know I'm just a non-expert hack, but that retirement calculator says it all, if you will just use it.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 09:53:00 AM:
Sadly, the answer to setting us on the "right" path again is to start with two goals:
1. Repeal the 16th & 17th Amendments.
2. FAIRTAX (abolish the income tax)!
All of the suggestions in his blog are nothing more than rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic. The entire premise is flawed, and this will only result in a flawed outcome/result.
Once you understand that the present "system" is not as much about raising revenue as it is about controlling the behavior of those forced to live under said system. In addition, the current system (Income Tax) gives our elected officials something more valuable than money; power. The power to decide how and where the money is spent is their real prize! Tigerhawk falls "prey" (how's that for punny?!) to the false premise established by our present tax system. Tigerhawk proves (to me, at least) that the tax code is a "game" to be played by businesses, and that game is protection. Why do you think we have businesses of all stripes funneling money to politicians and PACs? It's nothing more than a shakedown and industry A, B, & C are paying protection money to mitigate the harm. It is for this reason that McCain-Feingold is such a joke. If you want to eliminate the impact of lobbyists, PACs, and the vaunted special interests (they're all the same, by the way), abolish the income tax. Please revisit my above diatribe on protection money.
I like Tyree's idea of turning the US into a tax haven; the Fair Tax accomplishes this goal. The flow of capital into the US would be phenomenal; you would have to hide in Bin Laden's cave to not have a job.
My default position is individual liberty and none of Tigerhawk's proposals (his tax plan, also) get us to that point. Tigerhawk continues the flawed premise by "tweaking" the rules so that our already Byzantine tax code becomes even more Byzantine. That's just what we need, more pages to the tax code (insert sarcastic snort here)!
Oh, and while I'm ranting, what business is it of mine as to when a person retires? If an individual has worked and saved so that they can retire before I do, well, bully for them. Yes, I understand that in today's Social Security (read: welfare) environment it matters to me as a current taxpayer, but once again, we have allowed ourselves to be manipulated like societal pawns on Uncle Sam's chessboard.
Where does it end?
Are we free men (and women), or are we property of the State (and the political class)?
W
By TOF, at
Sun Jan 04, 09:55:00 AM:
The corporate income tax is recognized by economists as nothing more than a pass-through anyhow. Corporations simply factor the tax expense into the price of their products and pass them along to the final consumer.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 10:10:00 AM:
TOF,
You make an excellent point; the first rule of business is that businesses don't pay taxes! We could all write volumes on this subject, but your point forced me to make one more point.
We always here about our tax freedom date, the date in any given year when we have all paid our portion of taxes to the combined local/state/federal government, but what about all of the hidden taxation in the form of regulations?!?! Our "leaders", and I use the term loosely, know full well that they (Democrats and RINOs) have dumbed down the electorate to a sufficient level to not understand how they exact more "tribute" via corporations as their de facto tax collector.
W
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 10:44:00 AM:
I would add to the list a massive overhaul of the Federal employment system. The current process where most positions are open only to government employees with "status" means that the Government is not able to get fresh skills from the private sector--something they really need. The political correct social engineering that has prevailed in hiring for government positions for the past decade or two has made most agencies totally disfunctional--although it is great for contractors.
By Dagpotter, at
Sun Jan 04, 10:53:00 AM:
The part about moving development into towns with the tear down is a great idea. I live in a vibrant, small Southern city with a rotting inner city of cheap apartments and houses populated by the poor. The richer build in the suburbs. Make developers tear down this housing and build new ones that will appeal to the middle and upper class. This will also fix the schools. Another bonus of this would be to preserve farmland.
Of course you have the issue of what to do with the current residents? Where do they live, and how do you mix them with the newer people moving in. You could be like DC and just force them to move to MD. You would have to have a massive, social program to uplift these people as part of it.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 10:54:00 AM:
All good proposals, but mostly focused on the revenue / tax raising side. To me, it's more a spending problem. Government spending has been increasing at all levels; future government commitments for benefits and pensions will only accelerate this trend. Obama will likely only makes this worse.
Politically, we've created an environment where a large majority of our voters thinks that federal government spending is an answer to all problems and a free lunch. There's a core voting block of people who get checks from the government at all levels ... this block is only getting bigger. This includes many people who are nominally Republican ... like defense contractors, and GM executives.
This is unsustainable. We're on path to high inflation as the only means to balance the books. A little inflation will feel good for awhile ... when it starts nearing 10% it'll take a real toll on the real economy. We've seen this movie before, although I was a bit young in the 1970s to fully appreciate it.
We're also likely to see federal tax policies that redefine rich from $250,000 down to $100,000 or even lower ... and remove caps on taxes for things liek social security and health benefits. This will kill our striving middle class. The truly rich own things and are good at avoiding income taxes. I fear that this is part of Obama / Axlerod's master plan to make us all equal pigs.
We're on a path to become a big Argentina in 10 or 15 years time.
Link
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 11:17:00 AM:
The only way to fix any national crisis, including a fiscal one, is to become an informed voter and to vote into office men and women of intelligence and honor, while voting out of office those politicians who serve only themselves.
Many of the proposals above punish some segment of the US population that had nothing at all to do with the current fiscal crisis. We need to punish the perpetrators of the fiscal crisis, politicians all. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel come to mind.
We should stop thinking in terms of alleviating the symptoms, and start working on curing the disease.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 11:39:00 AM:
"Vote in people of honor" ... you must be joking. We just put a group of crooks into the White House. Barney Frank gets re-elected with a 90% vote, because Massachusetts is a one-party state. So we take this buffoon and make him Chairman of the House Banking committee. Eight years of Republican control only made this worse, because the Republicans have proven to be even worse crooks. I swear I'd trade our government for a Chinese dictatorship ... they at least care about the interests of all, instead of trying to advance the minority interests of their favored few.
Sorry for my cynicism ... I helped my hero cop brother-in-law run for office here in New York. Been there, done that.
Link
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 11:40:00 AM:
Instead of indexing Social Security to inflation or means, it should be indexed to life expectancy. When the program was set up, people were lucky if they lived to be 67, TWO years of recieving checks. With the explosion in medical technology, people will be living into their 90s or 100s. Instead of 2 years collecting checks, we're looking at 20 or 30 years. That is not sustainable!
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 11:48:00 AM:
Whoa! I am way tired of using the tax code to alter social or economic activity.
If we are going to write pie in the sky stuff then let's write up as our tax code with list that taxes are levied on all incomes, from whatever source derived, with no deductions for any reason.
A simple, one, low rate system that neither encourages nor discourages anything.
By OregonJon, at
Sun Jan 04, 11:59:00 AM:
Brilliant, but doomed. Politicians use corporate tax law complexity as a campaign fund raising tool. Asking politicos to eliminate the corporate income tax is asking them to impoverish politics. Ain't gonna happen.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 12:22:00 PM:
While I agree about the moral hazard implicit in subsidizing profligate states like Ca., I say do it anyway because that money would flow more quickly into spending than any other stimulus idea I've seen. I'm talking about money to preserve existing jobs and programs, not bridge-to-nowhere infrastructure that fell off the bottom of last year's pork list.
By Patrick H, at
Sun Jan 04, 12:24:00 PM:
Allowing the deduction of interest when buying a home encourages home ownership. Very few things encourage people to be responsible adults and better citizens than home ownership. It is also a usually safe long term investment that creates individual wealth that can be passed on to your children.
It also deprives the federal government of tax dollars. Unfortunately, property taxes have risen to steal that money anyway.
By mockmook, at
Sun Jan 04, 01:02:00 PM:
Another unattainable action has to be a corollary to your unattainable plan:
Individuals have to be educated to not expect government help. They must be taught that if they don't save, the government won't bail them out.
-----
First, we CAN'T teach THAT.
Second, people won't believe it since they see so much evidence that it isn't true.
By K T Cat, at
Sun Jan 04, 01:15:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, you've got some interesting ideas, but most of them are not applicable to our current problem. This is a balance sheet depression. That is, businesses and individuals are contracting because they can't service their debts without doing so. Until their debts are reduced to the point where they don't feel so stressed, they will continue to contract.
Most of the things you suggest won't address this problem. The only things that will are time and stability. That is, governmental spasms need to stop so that people can see just what the rules are and make decisions accordingly. The worst solutions are ones that increase debt.
Lowering taxes is not going to help right now. Businesses are not contracting because taxes are too high - decisions are not being made on this basis. Obama's stimulus plan is the worst idea of all as it blasts the debt into orbit and doesn't address the balance sheets of most individuals and businesses.
Over at my own blog, amidst some general silliness, I've been arguing that this is a cultural crisis, not a fiscal one. Our cutlure is all about immediate gratification, whether that is financial (record debts) or sexual (huge swaths of black men growing up without fathers and finding themselves in prison).
I like your idea for encouraging savings, but allow me to suggest that the coming depression will do that on its own. So long as we don't reinforce the notion that government can solve this problem, our cultural rot will be self-correcting. If we decide that government has the answers, then every sub-crisis ill lead us to grant government more powers to deal with them. That can't be good.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Jan 04, 01:30:00 PM:
To: W
Re: "I like Tyree's idea of turning the US into a tax haven; the Fair Tax accomplishes this goal. The flow of capital into the US would be phenomenal; you would have to hide in Bin Laden's cave to not have a job."
That was me, not Tyree. Thank you for your support.
By Fat Man, at
Sun Jan 04, 03:11:00 PM:
The United States Life Tables, 2004 from the CDC show that the average life expectancy for a 65 year old was, in that year, 18.7 years. The U.S. Decennial Life Tables for 1979-81, the era of the last major adjustment of rates and benefits, show that the average life expectancy for a 65 year old was, then, 16.5 years. Compare this to the United States Life Tables and Actuarial Tables 1939-1941, which showed an 12.8 year life expectancy for a 65 year old.
It is often argued that SS was created in the 1930s when life expectancies were lower than they are now. this is true, but as life expectancies have grown, and therefor the cost of the SS benefit has increased, taxes have been raised. The question is whether taxes are high enough to compensate for the actuarial cost of the increasing benefit.
Currently a slow incremental increase of the retirement age under Social Security (more correctly, the full benefit age) is in place. People born in 1943 had to wait until age 66 (in 2009) for full benefits and if they claimed benefits at age 62, they either waited another year or experienced a larger cut back.
For some reason, the progression stops at age 66 for ten birth years 1943 to 1954, which includes the peak years of the ill famed baby boom. I think that this is an economic and political mistake. Economic because there are way too many people in those birth years. Political, because the the Boomers need grow up and start acting like adults now that they are ready to go into nursing homes.
The full benefit age resumes its increase with birth year 1955 and continues until vintage 1960 people recieve full benefits at age 67, when USLT 2004 says they have a life expectancy of 17.2 years. Remember the 16.5 years cited above.
If we were to continue the progression of retirement age increases for all birth years from 1943 onward to 1979 at the rate of 2 months per birth year, the retirement age would be 72 (with a life expectancy of 13.8 years in USLT 2004, it would take another year of age increase to bring back the depression era life expectancy).
I do not have much patience for the argument, which comes from unions most often, that "higher retirement ages are fine for many of us in the white collar world, but blue collar workers tend to take a physical beating that results in increasing health problems as they age." It seems to have the air of proletarian solidarity, but I do not know of any facts on point. Just abstractly, a person engaged in physical labor might be healthier than a white collar employee because he gets regular exercise and sunshine that physicians assure us is required for good health.
By Unknown, at
Sun Jan 04, 03:19:00 PM:
(1) End federal deductibility for state and local taxes. (This will hit me - I live in CA.) Why should federal taxes subsidize state-provided services over individual provided ones?
(2) Start defaulting on federal debt.
(3) Start defaulting on state/local debt.
Govt debt is toxic. The only way to kill it is to punish folks who loan money to govt.
The only exceptions to (2) and (3) are for loans with specific collateral that a lender can seize upon default, not the power of taxation/revenue anticipation. And, if the loan is for something that isn't paying its way, like a football stadium, default and let the lender figure out how to make things work.
(4) Default on employer contributions to defined benefit pensions for previously promised retirement benefits for all govt employees. Move current/new employees to defined contribution plus whatever match that they can get out of govt at the same time.
By Unknown, at
Sun Jan 04, 03:20:00 PM:
> Why should I be denied S.S. benefits? S.S.is not welfare.
SS becomes welfare the moment that "contributions" are uncapped but benefits are.
By Micajah, at
Sun Jan 04, 05:26:00 PM:
If you eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest paid by homeowners, do you also eliminate the interest deduction for landlords? If you don't eliminate this deduction for both, wouldn't you be encouraging people to rent rather than buy (assuming landlords pass some of the benefit of the deduction to tenants)? Why encourage renting?
If you eliminate the deduction for both homeowners and landlords, what kind of change in the definition of income would you be making for landlords?
I ask, because I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners is meant to treat them no worse than landlords.
By Fat Man, at
Sun Jan 04, 10:42:00 PM:
I agree with you that the double taxation of corporate income should be ended, but I do not think that your system is the best available option to achieve that end. Making corporations non-tax paying, but keeping the distinction between corporate and personal tax attributes, would create an anomaly within the system that would render deduction and credit based incentives useless, would allow a great deal of income to escape taxation completely (because so much stock is owned by non-taxpayers such as pension funds and endowments), would allow foreigners to own US assets tax free (which violates the political axiom that the best possible tax is one on foreigners), and would tilt the age old battle between management and stockholders over corporate cash flow heavily in favor of management.
At the end of the Bush Sr. administration, Treasury published "Report of The Department of the Treasury on Integration of The Individual and Corporate Tax Systems: Taxing Business Income Once (January 1992)". The Report was written by Glenn Hubbard, who is now the Dean of the Columbia U. Business School, and who was not the 2nd baseman for the Braves in the early 80s. The Report reviewed various proposals for integrating the Corporation and personal income taxes. The proposal it recommended was continuing to tax corporations and making dividends tax free. In 2003 Congress based the plan to reduce the tax rate on dividends to 15% on the Report.
By , at
Mon Jan 05, 12:38:00 AM:
I ask, because I've always thought the mortgage interest deduction for homeowners is meant to treat them no worse than landlords.
Not really. All business interest is deductible.
By Kev, at
Mon Jan 05, 02:59:00 AM:
BTW, this talk about raising the age to retire to 70 sounds good. But, I think getting the age of retirement for govt workers to 65 will be a better way to save money. Govt workers retire in their 50's. Govt pensions are a disgrace.
So why not bump them up to 70 as well? And autoworkers, too, which would seem to solve a lot of the problems that the (Not-So) Big Three automakers are having.
And I agree with Fat Man's comments (Sun. 3:11) about union workers. Even on the off chance that he's wrong, there's no reason people couldn't be shifted to a less physically demanding job if they honestly couldn't perform the physical demands of their current job. It would sure be better than paying for them to retire at 50.
By , at
Mon Jan 05, 05:10:00 PM:
If we're talking tax cuts, how about a one-year tax holiday for anyone who buys stock in a US company in 2009, and who holds it for a year. There's a lot of money on the sideline that needs an incentive to move first. Little revenue would be lost ... maybe none. The benefits from having our markets stabilize and maybe even gain a bit would be significant.
Link
