Are Higher Payroll taxes the Solution to the Social Security Issue?

Some people think that raising payroll taxes will not help the social security crisis. In the position that the US economy is in right now, working toward a solid recovery from a recession, that raising taxes would not be a good solution . Americans would, in that case, not be able to contribute to stimulating the economy to their full potential because they would have less disposable income, therefore  the positive reactions experienced with the multiplier affect would be minimal. The main problem is that social security is unsustainable. The deficits started in 2010 and its trust fund will be depleted by 2036. At that time about 25 % of the social security benefits will be cut. Among some lawmakers raising taxes seem to be on the top of their solutions list. Right now employers and employees each  pay 6.2 % for social security and medicare. If the tax increase were to happen employers and employees would have to split an increase of at least 2.2 %. Raising taxes will further hurt the economy in this situation because employers would then be discouraged from hiring new employees, they would cut labor, increasing America unemployment rates. With my knowledge of the situation I would agree that right now wouldn't be the best time to raise taxes. If in the future our economy has experienced some growth, maybe raising taxes would sound a little bit better. But I  think that right now that government so thoroughly be exploring other options.

ObamaCare- Oligopoly?

A commentary by Merril Matthews on Forbes.com, written about a year ago, suggested that President Obama's new health care plans would create an oligopoly with insurance companies. The main issue from the commenters point of view would be that having fewer insurers would create this oligopoly that would lead to higher prices for healthcare. It is true that in an oligopoly that firms have control over their own prices and most often will try to maximize profits. But also when talking in terms of these kinds of markets, unlike monoploies, oligopolies have to take into consideration what their competition is going to charge, and how they may react to changes in one firms prices. The problem is that many times companies do not know what their competition is going to do so they have to go by what they think will happen and what they think is the best move for their own self-interest, this is called strategic behavior. In the ObamaCare situation i'm not sure if the prices have risen overall, but with control over prices in an oligopoly, and also having mutual interdependence in the equation, it is a possibility that these healthcare firms will have a range of prices suitable to consumers. If the prices were higher overall, i believe that their still would be prices on the lower end of the stick. Also the commentator spoke about the barriers to entry in the example. Apparently there were regulations set in place by the government where there was new state created and controlled "markets" where people and small companies will buy coverage, basically set the rules and decide the winners.

Price Discrimination with Kids Menus?

I found an article online that claimed that restaurants practice price discrimination by having kids menus and by charging cheaper prices for those items and not letting adults order from them. The definition of price discrimination is the selling of a product to different buyers at different prices when the price differences are not justified by differences in cost. Now when I think of price discrimination in a monopoly, it is about one uniform product or service. Often times kids menu items are way smaller and not as taxing to prepare or most likely do not include as expensive ingredients of that in an adult meal..its like comparing a small portion of chicken fingers and fries to a full course meal for an adult that might often include a appetizer, entree and even dessert. In my opinion this is not a good representative for price discrimination because clearly the units in comparison are not the same or uniform in a sense. My main argument would be that in most cases the kids meals are smaller and are cheaper for the restaurant to produce compared to adult items, which of course would cost the restaurant more money and effort to make, which justifies the cheaper kids meal prices. It would be different if the adult items and the kids items were identical in portion and were on the the same accord as far as how much and what exactly is being served..but as far as I know, as of now there is a significant divide between the two.