# Why taxing the rich hardly ever works



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

So many times it has been posted that there are so many poor people who need, well, just about everything.
If someone can get these posters to address where the money to pay for these things is to be obtained, they may say the rich corporations or just the rich.
Unfortunately most of the rich are rich because they like their money- they like having and keeping it. So if they are squeezed by increasing tax rates, two things happen immediately. 
One is that they move elsewhere- either overseas or another state where the taxes favor them. Corporations seek ridiculous tax breaks from local government sources to be paid to put a business that will offer jobs. In otherwords, they have a herd of lawyers and paid politicians to arrange these things.
The second is that they first look into any loophole to avoid taxes and, if that doesn't work, the money just disappears in any one of million ways.

The people who end up paying are the defenseless people rich enough to have something to pay but not rich enough to have their own lobby.

So if a politician says that the people need this, that or the other benefit yet is pretty vague about how it's going to be financed, and you keep voting for him, you have insured that the rich don't pay and that the remainder slowly get bled dry. 

Of course the great thing about that is, when there is only two classes, rich and poor, we can all be united in the same sinking boat.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Who are 'the rich'?
How much do you have to make a year to be 'rich'?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.

Overall, I think the argument should not be that it's impossible to tax rich corporations. The better argument is that the government can't balance the 2.5 trillion we give now, so what makes us think that giving them more money would solve anything?

I don't think we are in this mess because 'the government isn't getting enough of our money', we are in this mess because they are mismanaging our tax money and expanding their role beyond what they can pay for. Why should we want government to have more money? So it can grow EVEN BIGGER? Give me a break, tax revenue should be REDUCED!


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

One of the things we citizens need to be doing is sending them strong messages that we're on to their tricks. To stay large, we have to 'need' them so they keep inventing more ways that we 'need' them. Even if there are needs - why is the govt the one that should 'fix' it? Each discovery costs us a bit more money. In the run to make us all the same - heavy taxes on the rich and no taxes on the poor- it's always the ones in the middle that are getting the squeeze. The wealthy have the means to avoid a lot of taxes, but their 14% is way more than we even make in a year, so I can't complain. When the chat is "everyone pay their fair share", why do we always look to the rich? At least they are paying something.

'We the people' are letting the govt run over us.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

I have no trouble giving tax breaks for investment in the US. But to allow tax breaks to move business else where in the world isn't right. Why should Americans pay for corporations to develop business overseas that doesn't benefit US economy.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Darntootin said:


> As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.
> 
> Overall, I think the argument should not be that it's impossible to tax rich corporations. The better argument is that the government can't balance the 2.5 trillion we give now, so what makes us think that giving them more money would solve anything?
> 
> I don't think we are in this mess because 'the government isn't getting enough of our money', we are in this mess because they are mismanaging our tax money and expanding their role beyond what they can pay for. Why should we want government to have more money? So it can grow EVEN BIGGER? Give me a break, tax revenue should be REDUCED!


Exactly! The government needs to balance a budget and live within it, just like most of the citizens do.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Who are 'the rich'?
> How much do you have to make a year to be 'rich'?


It depends on rather your working toward a goal of may be being rich or just comfortable some day or if your setting on your tail whining and looking for hand outs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

As long as politicians can buy our votes through government programs, it won't change. Term limits would go a long way towards solving the problem. We need to force the politicians off the feed trough periodically and permanently.


----------



## Batt (Sep 8, 2006)

I will get flamed for this, but....
The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that make them rich. I have yet to see someone who was self made rich only working 8-5 and then home to sports or American Idol. 

The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that keep them poor, either through inaction or misadventure. An 8-5 job maybe then it is home to the TV except for Friday night. Then there is the obligatory stop at the convenience store for beer and cigarettes. Those that thru no fault of there own are unable to work are the ones the "Safety Net" are designed for.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I am a flat-tax person myself. Everyone pays the same rate, no graduated tax rate, and it probably wouldn't be that high if everyone paid. There would be an exemption per person, none for filing status, no deductions, no credits (NO REFUNDABLE credits) and no itemized deductions at all. When the governement collects the money in April that is the amount they get for the next years budget, no borrowing, no deficit, can only spend what is brought in.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Batt said:


> I will get flamed for this, but....
> The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that make them rich. I have yet to see someone who was self made rich only working 8-5 and then home to sports or American Idol.
> 
> The poor are poor because they keep doing the things that keep them poor, either through inaction or misadventure. An 8-5 job maybe then it is home to the TV except for Friday night. Then there is the obligatory stop at the convenience store for beer and cigarettes. Those that thru no fault of there own are unable to work are the ones the "Safety Net" are designed for.


There are even fewer that started out with nothing and made it! Most have inherited a lot of money, got it illegally, walked over dead bodies to get it or power They inherited. There are a lot of people who work 2 or sometimes 3 jobs and are still trying to make ends meet. The rich do NOT work any harder at than anyone else!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darntootin said:


> I don't think we are in this mess because 'the government isn't getting enough of our money', we are in this mess because they are mismanaging our tax money and expanding their role beyond what they can pay for.


As mismanaged as our tax dollars might be, it has nothing to do with why we're in this mess. Moreover, managing our tax dollars better is not going to get us out of this mess. If you want to have a conversation about how the recession started and how it might be cured then fine, but blaming the recession on unrelated events is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

Wow Batt that is a pretty blanket comment and I don't think you can categorize that way. However, I do agree that usually you can't work a 8-5 job alone and get rich. It takes more work than that absolutely. 

Unfortunately I do think it is hard when you grow up without a lot of money to break the habits that keep you there. One of those being truly IMO having the attitude that you can't change it. 

I think being rich and being poor are a lot of your state of mind. I know a lot of folks with no monetary worth but they are very rich and appear so in just the way they carry themselves. They have faith, family, and lots of love for each other. 

I also know a lot of folks who have enough money to buy anything they want yet they are depressed and unhappy. They are lonely even when there are people around them. 

Be happy with what you do, where you go, who you know, and what you have. This is the true path to being rich. If you have are happy with these things you really wouldn't care whether others knew if you were rich or poor. 


Sorry guys I got off subject it is just that the whole rich man poor man thing just drives me nuts. Quit complaining and change something! 
I agree with Melissa that a flat tax is the way to go. We all pay the same on what we make which should work for all involved if they are not trying to get away with paying too little for what they do or do not make. 

If you have a roof over your head, clothes on your back, and food to eat you are very wealthy in the eyes of many in this world.


----------



## grayrecliner (Jul 13, 2007)

Well said Batt. There needs to be a "safety net" not a hammock.


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

bignugly said:


> There are even fewer that started out with nothing and made it! Most have inherited a lot of money, got it illegally, walked over dead bodies to get it or power They inherited. There are a lot of people who work 2 or sometimes 3 jobs and are still trying to make ends meet. The rich do NOT work any harder at than anyone else!


You are correct...they don't work harder...they work smarter...they make their money work for them...they do whatever it takes to "get there"...yes sometimes it is on the backs of others....that is life...plain and simple...is it right?...no...it is wrong....but it is still the way it is...there are but a handful of ways to wealth...education in a prosperous field, inheritance, thievery and investment....in other words, you either learn it, steal it, earn it or it is given to you....also remember that there are many levels of wealth...to me, wealth is simply having more than I need...as far as the extremely wealthy, I have to agree with Melissa...a flat tax....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Batt said:


> I will get flamed for this, but....
> The rich are rich because they keep doing the things that make them rich. I have yet to see someone who was self made rich only working 8-5 and then home to sports or American Idol.


You are only talking about self-made millionaires. Self-made millionaires are, and always have been, the exception. Most of the wealthy got that way the old fashioned way -- they inherited it. It's a closed club of people who were born into privilege and the cronies they met at Ivy League colleges (some who were not born to privilege). They are not necessarily self-starters or otherwise impressive people in any way.

These people give each other jobs as CEO and members of their boards of directors at exorbitant salaries, sometimes hundreds of millions per year. These jobs are not competitive. As I said, it's a closed club. When they hire a friend to be CEO at a salary of $200 million per year, you don't think they could find someone competent to take the job at $175 million? Of course they could, but these guys all owe each other favors, since that CEO has given other cronies jobs with salaries just as obscene. Basically they are hiring each other, and they will ONLY hire each other.

The playing field is not level. Congress is setup to allow itself to be bought by those people, and the wealthy are happy to do the buying. When they want something that will help them make billions, they can have it by bribing congress with a few million. Congress will be happy to pass a law that makes it so. It's just that easy, and nobody seems to mind. Congress is not acting in the interests of the people, they're acting in the best interests of corporations why buy them -- and we keep reelecting them.

I don't know why there are so many people who defend the wealthy and lobby for their interests, particularly when the ones doing the lobbying usually aren't even in the club. It's possible that they don't understand, but I doubt it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There are stories of the poor lowly janitor, school bus driver, waitress, etc who died and left a million to some charity. 
Too many people spend their efforts figuring ways around working hard and managing money. They start out assuming it's luck and so never learn better. 
The one thing I have found from listening and watching people's life stories, is that there is always an excuse but hardly ever a reason.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Nevada said:


> You are only talking about self-made millionaires. Self-made millionaires are, and always have been, the exception. Most of the wealthy got that way the old fashioned way -- they inherited it. It's a closed club of people who were born into privilege and the cronies they met at Ivy League colleges (some who were not born to privilege). They are not necessarily self-starters or otherwise impressive people in any way.
> 
> These people give each other jobs as CEO and members of their boards of directors at exorbitant salaries, sometimes hundreds of millions per year. These jobs are not competitive. As I said, it's a closed club. When they hire a friend to be CEO at a salary of $200 million per year, you don't think they could find someone competent to take the job at $175 million? Of course they could, but these guys all owe each other favors, since that CEO has given other cronies jobs with salaries just as obscene. Basically they are hiring each other, and they will ONLY hire each other.
> The playing field is not level. Congress is setup to allow itself to be bought by those people, and the wealthy are happy to do the buying. When they want something that will help them make billions, they can have it by bribing congress with a few million. Congress will be happy to pass a law that makes it so. It's just that easy, and nobody seems to mind. Congress is not acting in the interests of the people, they're acting in the best interests of corporations why buy them -- and we keep reelecting them.
> ...


Not true. The fact is 80% of millionaires are first timers, and they worked hard to get there. They did not have it given to them:

The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary

I'm so tired of all the envy and hatred aimed toward those who have been successful. Unless a crime has been committed, it's really none of anybody else's business how much money someone else makes or how they spend it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

my3boys said:


> Not true. The fact is 80% of millionaires are first timers, and they worked hard to get there. They did not have it given to them:
> 
> The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
> 
> I'm so tired of all the envy and hatred aimed toward those who have been successful. Unless a crime has been committed, it's really none of anybody else's business how much money someone else makes or how they spend it.


My choice of words was not good. Due to persistent inflation millionaires are not as elite as they once were. $250K in 1975 would be worth over $1 million today. It's not even that unusual for people to live in $1 million homes is some parts of the country. Millionaires have become commonplace.

The people I'm talking about are worth in the hundreds of millions -- and more. You know, guys like Romney.


----------



## belladulcinea (Jun 21, 2006)

Making money off the backs of working people, you mean like creating jobs for people??? Like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others who made their employees rich too by working them? I have no problem with Romney's money it's his to spend as he pleases, I do have a problem with how the taxes we send to the government are spent. Mrs. Obama's vacations on the backs of working people come to mind.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Where am I?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Neither the poor nor the rich should be taxed more.

We should do what typical American households do when faced with expenses for something they either need or want for which there in no money in the family budget: put it on a credit card and forget about it.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Tiempo said:


> Where am I?


GC Lite? When someone calls Michelle Obama a wookie, we'll know it's full blown GC.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nevada said:


> As mismanaged as our tax dollars might be, it has nothing to do with why we're in this mess. Moreover, managing our tax dollars better is not going to get us out of this mess. If you want to have a conversation about how the recession started and how it might be cured then fine, but blaming the recession on unrelated events is intellectually dishonest.


I'm not talking about the recession, who mention 'recession'?? I'm talking about our unsustainable debt and the budget deficit. Blaming the unbalanced budget on the recession is what's dishonest here. The budget has been unbalanced for many decades through good economy and bad. The debt has been growing just as long.

The recession is another topic but very closely related. What single organization has the most control over the economy? The Federal Reserve...I'd start there.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darntootin said:


> As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.


Tariffs won't make companies move manufacturing back here.

Companies will simply pass the tariffs cost, on to U.S. consumers.

Remember it's not just about "US" any more. Chinese made goods are sold world-wide.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Tariffs won't make companies move manufacturing back here.
> 
> Companies will simply pass the tariffs cost, on to U.S. consumers.
> 
> Remember it's not just about "US" any more. Chinese made goods are sold world-wide.


Nah I dont know about that...it works for sugar and other imports that big industries want to have a competitive advantage over. Archer Daniels Midland lobbied to put a tariff on imported sugar, the result is that corn syrup is now cheaper and so its in everything.

If you ad a tariff to foreign goods, you give a competitive advantage to domestic made goods. No tariff means a lower over head. It's worked historically and would work again.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Melissa said:


> I am a flat-tax person myself. Everyone pays the same rate, no graduated tax rate, and it probably wouldn't be that high if everyone paid. There would be an exemption per person, none for filing status, no deductions, no credits (NO REFUNDABLE credits) and no itemized deductions at all. When the governement collects the money in April that is the amount they get for the next years budget, no borrowing, no deficit, can only spend what is brought in.


Is this really "fair"?

Let's say the flat tax rate is 20%

A family making $40,000/ year, will pay $8,000/ year in taxes. $8k is not an insignificant amount of money for this family. Right now they probably pay 1/4th that, or less, in taxes after deductions.

A family making $40,000,000/yr, will pay $8million/yr in taxes. Granted, that is a lot of money, but they still will have to find a way to *skimp by* on *$32Million dollars* a year, after taxes.

Can they pay more and still have a good life?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darntootin said:


> Nah I dont know about that...it works for sugar and other imports that big industries want to have a competitive advantage over. Archer Daniels Midland lobbied to put a tariff on imported sugar, the result is that corn syrup is now cheaper and so its in everything.
> 
> If you ad a tariff to foreign goods, you give a competitive advantage to domestic made goods. No tariff means a lower over head. It's worked historically and would work again.



Does it work?

Who pays for the tariffs on these sugar imports?



> The USDA established the tariff-rate quota for raw cane sugar at 1,231,497 tons, the minimum to which the U.S. is committed under World Trade Organization rules.


U.S. to Allow More Low-Tariff Sugar Imports - WSJ.com


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Does it work?
> 
> Who pays for the tariffs on these sugar imports?


Those that want that sugar enough to pay extra for it! Those too stupid or stubborn to find alternatives. In other words tariffs lessen sales of those expatriot companies trying to use cheap labor yet have most of their market in the good ole USA. Remember in capitalism, sales are where price curve intersects demand curve. Higher price, less demand, less money made by the greedy. Very few things have inelastic demand. 

So the greedy make less money! Mission accomplished.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darntootin said:


> Nah I dont know about that...it works for sugar and other imports that big industries want to have a competitive advantage over. Archer Daniels Midland lobbied to put a tariff on imported sugar, the result is that corn syrup is now cheaper and so its in everything.
> 
> If you ad a tariff to foreign goods, you give a competitive advantage to domestic made goods. No tariff means a lower over head. It's worked historically and would work again.


Conservatives used to tell me during the Bush administration that the national debt wasn't so bad, at least compared to other countries. Debt was a good thing 5 years ago, since it kept taxes low. Remember those days?

Our debt is around 60% if the GDP, where countries that are in trouble (Greece & Italy, for example) are in the range of 100% to 150%. Germany, which Europe considers to be a stellar example of fiscal responsibility, has debt at around 80% of their GDP, which is about 20% higher than ours. See for yourself.

List of National Debt by Country | Economics Blog

Obviously the national debt is a lot of money when an individual tries to fathom that amount, but for a country with a GDP as large as ours it isn't bad.

Besides, the national debt doesn't need to be paid off completely. There are good arguments for maintaining a certain amount of debt. What will eventually happen is that the economy will recover and the GDP will soar. Debt will appear small in relation to the GDP so we'll stop worrying.


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Is this really "fair"?
> 
> Let's say the flat tax rate is 20%
> 
> ...


It's not about if they can have a good life on less....It's about the fact that they aquired this money and it belongs to them....are you saying it is fair to take more money from me because I aquired more?...Maybe I aquired more because I invested wisely......maybe I educated myself when others were too busy having a good time...maybe my parents left me money that they worked hard to earn....btw...if it was given to me it was already taxed when the person before me owned or earned it....so when they gave it to me that money gets taxed twice....talk about "not fair"....If you ever have to fork over HALF of what you earn, you might feel differently...taxes hurt people no matter how much they have.....many charities DEPEND on the wealthy to operate and provide goods and services to the poor...if I have to loose too much in taxes, why should I work harder? and how can I possibly support the charities that feed the hungry? Millionaires and Billionaires pay heavy taxes AND give from their own pockets....And by the way I am no millionaire much less a billionaire...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't think China is going to agree to our putting tariffs on things made there. We owe them way too much money to make a big issue of it. What if they call our loans.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

I haven't been in GC for a couple years now, but I believe the correct answer is...

"It's Bush's fault"


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Well if I were in charge (just pretend!) the tax rate would be nowhere near 20%, more like 4-5%. That family making 40K- say it was a family of five, would each have a personal exemption of let's say $5000 per person. So they would only pay tax on $15K at that percentage. If every single tax payer did this and no one received refundable credits, I think the amount taken in by the government would be adequate. The catch is that is the only tax they would pay at the federal level. Social Security and Medicare would be voluntary and would have to be self-sufficient. The money would remain in its own fund with no loaning, borrowing or bailouts of any kind.The federal government would become very lean I imagine. We would find out just how much waste there really is. Living with no debt (even as a nation) can be very freeing...


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You are only talking about self-made millionaires. Self-made millionaires are, and always have been, the exception. Most of the wealthy got that way the old fashioned way -- they inherited it. It's a closed club of people who were born into privilege and the cronies they met at Ivy League colleges (some who were not born to privilege). They are not necessarily self-starters or otherwise impressive people in any way.
> 
> These people give each other jobs as CEO and members of their boards of directors at exorbitant salaries, sometimes hundreds of millions per year. These jobs are not competitive. As I said, it's a closed club. When they hire a friend to be CEO at a salary of $200 million per year, you don't think they could find someone competent to take the job at $175 million? Of course they could, but these guys all owe each other favors, since that CEO has given other cronies jobs with salaries just as obscene. Basically they are hiring each other, and they will ONLY hire each other.
> 
> ...





grandma12703 said:


> Wow Batt that is a pretty blanket comment and I don't think you can categorize that way. However, I do agree that usually you can't work a 8-5 job alone and get rich. It takes more work than that absolutely.
> 
> Unfortunately I do think it is hard when you grow up without a lot of money to break the habits that keep you there. One of those being truly IMO having the attitude that you can't change it.
> 
> ...



Yes,yes, and yes


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Fair Light said:


> It's not about if they can have a good life on less....It's about the fact that they aquired this money and it belongs to them....are you saying it is fair to take more money from me because I aquired more?...Maybe I aquired more because I invested wisely......maybe I educated myself when others were too busy having a good time...maybe my parents left me money that they worked hard to earn....btw...if it was given to me it was already taxed when the person before me owned or earned it....so when they gave it to me that money gets taxed twice....talk about "not fair"....If you ever have to fork over HALF of what you earn, you might feel differently...taxes hurt people no matter how much they have.....many charities DEPEND on the wealthy to operate and provide goods and services to the poor...if I have to loose too much in taxes, why should I work harder? and how can I possibly support the charities that feed the hungry? Millionaires and Billionaires pay heavy taxes AND give from their own pockets....And by the way I am no millionaire much less a billionaire...


Who ever said life was fair?

Go to the DMV and see the difference in price on licensing a Ford Focus, verses a Cadillac Escalade?

There is $50-100 dollars, tax on airline tickets. Much less on a bus ticket.

Breaking news, rich people already get a lot more tax breaks, than poor people do. The middle class do too.

And someone _please_ explain exactly how lowering rich peoples taxes and raising poor peoples taxes, will help the economy and the budget deficit?


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

26 CEOs Who Made More Than Their Companies Paid In Federal Tax - Forbes

Good reading


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Consumers vote with their dollar. As long as we support companies that pay huge salaries they will keep on paying them. Buy locally from self-employed people. Your dollar stays in the community and supports people you know.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Melissa said:


> Consumers vote with their dollar. As long as we support companies that pay huge salaries they will keep on paying them. Buy locally from self-employed people. Your dollar stays in the community and supports people you know.


Few consumers are that idealistic. In fact, most consumers don't know or care what CEOs make, so they couldn't vote that way even if they wanted to.


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Who ever said life was fair?
> 
> Go to the DMV and see the difference in price on licensing a Ford Focus, verses a Cadillac Escalade?
> 
> ...


I guess it all depends on what you consider poor....the true poor pay nothing in taxes...most get more in refunds than what was deducted from their paychecks...based on the earned income credit. How can you lower taxes on someone that pays none to begin with?..The bottom line is that it's the middle class that suffer the most...and that middle class is shrinking...As far as fair? you got that straight....nothing is fair in life...however it is wrong to rob from the rich to give to the poor....Let the rich give to the poor of their own choosing.....We just have no right to take it from them...they aquired it, it belongs to them, they should not be discriminated against because they have it...Since life isn't fair, is it ok for someone to rob YOU...then say "Oh well...life just isn't fair"....but I have to agree with Melissa I think something around 8% -10% of income and then tell the government this is what you get to spend...period !!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

bignugly said:


> I have no trouble giving tax breaks for investment in the US. But to allow tax breaks to move business else where in the world isn't right. Why should Americans pay for corporations to develop business overseas that doesn't benefit US economy.


Is it better for a company to start a business here, only to have cheap imports put them out of business? Like it nor not (I don't) it is a global economy. There is a point to make that products made overseas with cheap labor offer consumers in this country lower cost alternatives and therefore help curb inflation.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

my3boys said:


> Not true. The fact is 80% of millionaires are first timers, and they worked hard to get there. They did not have it given to them:
> 
> The Real "1 Percent" | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
> 
> I'm so tired of all the envy and hatred aimed toward those who have been successful. Unless a crime has been committed, it's really none of anybody else's business how much money someone else makes or how they spend it.


I am so tired of people that the rich have earned their money. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire. Every millionaire had help along the way! Even Bill Gates had help from IBM. Instead of reading articles from the Cato Institute, try reading about W.Clement Stone, you may learn something.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> Like it nor not (I don't) it is a global economy.


I do! 
I'd venture to guess a good 20% of my sales are made internationally. Mostly Canada and Australia...


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Is this really "fair"?
> 
> Let's say the flat tax rate is 20%
> 
> ...


At $8,000,000 year taxes, they are paying a fair share regardless what is left. Now they are only paying $8,000, the same as someone making $40,000!


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Fair Light said:


> It's not about if they can have a good life on less....It's about the fact that they aquired this money and it belongs to them....are you saying it is fair to take more money from me because I aquired more?...Maybe I aquired more because I invested wisely......maybe I educated myself when others were too busy having a good time...maybe my parents left me money that they worked hard to earn....btw...if it was given to me it was already taxed when the person before me owned or earned it....so when they gave it to me that money gets taxed twice....talk about "not fair"....If you ever have to fork over HALF of what you earn, you might feel differently...taxes hurt people no matter how much they have.....many charities DEPEND on the wealthy to operate and provide goods and services to the poor...if I have to loose too much in taxes, why should I work harder? and how can I possibly support the charities that feed the hungry? Millionaires and Billionaires pay heavy taxes AND give from their own pockets....And by the way I am no millionaire much less a billionaire...


your argument that you made money a different way doesn't justify not paying taxon that income. The only reason the rich donate to the charity is for the tax right off not out of the goodness of their hearts.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't think China is going to agree to our putting tariffs on things made there. We owe them way too much money to make a big issue of it. What if they call our loans.


What are they going to do? Repossess the US! They and other Asian countries have been putting tariffs on our products sent there for years.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Oggie said:


> Neither the poor nor the rich should be taxed more.
> 
> We should do what typical American households do when faced with expenses for something they either need or want for which there in no money in the family budget: put it on a credit card and forget about it.


That works fine until the credit cards are more than you can pay and they stop lending you money. Greece, Italy, and others can tell you what happens then.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

ErinP said:


> I do!
> I'd venture to guess a good 20% of my sales are made internationally. Mostly Canada and Australia...


Good for you. It works out for some but hurts the masses. We've lost millions of jobs due to the global economy. When's the last time we ran a trade surplus?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> That works fine until the credit cards are more than you can pay and they stop lending you money. Greece, Italy, and others can tell you what happens then.


But Greece & Italy's credit card balance is twice what ours is, based in percent of GDP.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

poppy said:


> That works fine until the credit cards are more than you can pay and they stop lending you money. Greece, Italy, and others can tell you what happens then.


And yet, everytime we have an "emergency" both parties do just that. Then they just sort of fail to budget in the payments to pay off that debt.

Whether it be for recent wars or the plans to stimulate the economy, we as a people owe on more than a few bills. Sooner or later they'll have to be paid.

Neither party wants to pay them. Instead, they just argue and pay the interest.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Few consumers are that idealistic. In fact, most consumers don't know or care what CEOs make, so they couldn't vote that way even if they wanted to.


I certainly don't care how much the CEO makes on anything that I buy. In fact I hope he makes alot and more. I gain nothing from the politics of envy. Money does not exist in a fixed amount, new wealth is created everyday. Just because someone has more doesn't mean someone else has to have less. That mentality is childish and shows a poor grasp of the basic principles of our economic system.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Conservatives used to tell me during the Bush administration that the national debt wasn't so bad, at least compared to other countries. Debt was a good thing 5 years ago, since it kept taxes low. Remember those days?
> 
> Our debt is around 60% if the GDP, where countries that are in trouble (Greece & Italy, for example) are in the range of 100% to 150%. Germany, which Europe considers to be a stellar example of fiscal responsibility, has debt at around 80% of their GDP, which is about 20% higher than ours. See for yourself.
> 
> ...


So why is the left so keen on raising taxes? Why not just keep borrowing, since the debt doesn't matter. Why care about the budget being balanced? If GDP is going to rise like you say and make the debt seem miniscule, I guess we can borrow and spend for whatever we need and leave taxes where they are or even reduce them.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

poppy said:


> There is a point to make that products made overseas with cheap labor offer consumers in this country lower cost alternatives and therefore help curb inflation.



People are forgetting Henry Ford's wisdom in raising his workers wages to $5 a day causing howls of outrage from other factory owners. But he got the cream of the crop in way of employees and his employees could actually afford to buy the consumer product he was selling.

We are doing just the opposite, lowering worker wages and forcing them to be dependent on the cheapest imported goods. Eventually they wont even be able to afford many of those cheap goods. Those goods produced here are only marketed towards high income consumers. Problem is there arent that many high end consumers and they can afford the best of the best from around the world and are savvy enough to track down what they want.

We are devolving back to a Mexican system with few jobs, majority poor, and a tiny ruling class that are richer than god. This is not good long term strategy, though I suppose Americans can sneak across the border and become illegal immigrants to Canada..... cleaning their toilets for sub minimum wage.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darntootin said:


> As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.


That might have worked in the 1800s and maybe even in the early 1900s but not today. If you make it too expensive to sell an item in the US there's always China, India, Brazil and many other places with up and coming economies. 




Darntootin said:


> I don't think we are in this mess because 'the government isn't getting enough of our money', we are in this mess because they are mismanaging our tax money and expanding their role beyond what they can pay for. Why should we want government to have more money? So it can grow EVEN BIGGER? Give me a break, tax revenue should be REDUCED!


I disagree slightly. We are in this mess because because the government has expanded beyond the role it was constitutionally limited to. Expended in such a way to buy votes of those sucking on the government teat.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> There are even fewer that started out with nothing and made it! Most have inherited a lot of money, got it illegally, walked over dead bodies to get it or power They inherited. There are a lot of people who work 2 or sometimes 3 jobs and are still trying to make ends meet. The rich do NOT work any harder at than anyone else!


Don't know many 'rich' people do you? Every person I know who makes over the magic $250K amount (and I know a few) started out no better off than most of the people on this board. They got to the magic $250K amount by working 50+ hrs a week and taking chances. The same thing applies to all those 'rich' $100K people.

The best example is an old friend who fits your "started out with nothing". When he and his wife got married he was a construction worker and they were barely making it. He worked his butt off and his wife opened a 'beauty shop' out of their house. By the time they were in their 40s he owned his own metal building erection business. By the time they were in their 50s he was semi-retired letting others do the day to day work of running the business.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

bignugly said:


> There are even fewer that started out with nothing and made it! Most have inherited a lot of money, got it illegally, walked over dead bodies to get it or power They inherited. There are a lot of people who work 2 or sometimes 3 jobs and are still trying to make ends meet. The rich do NOT work any harder at than anyone else!


I'm not rich, but I'm a little better off than the average bear. At 18, I didn't have a pot to wee-wee in or a window to throw it out of. But I've never worked a 40-hour week in my life (except in school, then I worked 30+).

I put myself through college (with no debt) and have worked my butt off ever since. My wife had to quit work because of illness 16 years ago. And I put two kids through college with minimal student loan debt.

I'm 53, and I anticipate retiring on $60k/yr in a couple of years, with my stand-alone emergency fund of $300K, along with two brick houses and 30 acres of land.

God has blessed me with a decent mind, two working hands and good health. The key to accumulating wealth for those not born into it, is to work hard, work smart and work long.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As mismanaged as our tax dollars might be, it has nothing to do with why we're in this mess. Moreover, managing our tax dollars better is not going to get us out of this mess. If you want to have a conversation about how the recession started and how it might be cured then fine, but blaming the recession on unrelated events is intellectually dishonest.


You are seeing a tree and missing the forest. The current problems didn't just happen overnight. Its the result of decades of government misuse of power and interference in the markets.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

grayrecliner said:


> Well said Batt. There needs to be a "safety net" not a hammock.


The problem is the government should NOT be the one providing the net. They should be overseeing those providing the net to make sure they are not abusing those in need nor misusing the money they are supposed to be using to help those in need.

W/o this type of oversight you wind up with what we have now. The provider skims off the top (providing huge salaries and benefit packages) and the people in need get abused (by getting just enough to keep them dependent).


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> God has blessed me with a decent mind, two working hands and good health. The key to accumulating wealth for those not born into it, is to work hard, work smart and work long.


My husband and I both started out without the proverbial pot or window, each on our own at age 17. He joined the Army and left for basic training the day after he graduated H.S. ... I was already working and living on my own when I graduated. He accumulated 3 college credits over the course of his career, while I have about 60. We both have been in management positions and have had opportunities far beyond what might be expected for persons with a limited amount of eduction. 

We both worked really hard, but now we own his home, my farm, are debt-free and have a nice nest egg tucked away. He retired 4 years ago with three pensions (military, civilian and Social Security) and still manages to save money each month. I'm still working two and sometimes three jobs a day, and saving and investing for the future.

It irks me when I hear people who want what we have, but aren't willing to do what we did to get it. You don't have to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist, either -- just willing to bust your hump a little.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

I have a simple solution, if a company wants to pay people so low that those workers have to rely on government assistance to make ends meet than the business should get a bill in the mail. Like it or not there will always be low skill jobs. The assumption that everyone should just get a better job does not translate well into the real world, especially when the real world (well the USA) has 8 percent unemployment or higher. There are only so many jobs to go around and only so many of them are what people would consider good jobs. You and I can either pay more for goods and services so that a cashier at a grocery store can have a decent living and not be financially destitute or we can pay higher taxes to make up the difference. So which do you choose? I guess we could get rid of all social programs, let people die off, starve, ect. Or perhaps we could try and off-load our poor on some other country like what Mexico does to us. Would be interesting to see how Canada reacts to having a bunch of illegal Americans sneak across the border :happy2:

Also the rich were taxed much higher in the middle of the last century and things didn't descend into chaos. The rich have been taxed less and less over the last 30 years. It hasn't translated into more income security for everyone else. So obviously taxing the wealthy less hasn't worked either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Is this really "fair"?
> 
> Let's say the flat tax rate is 20%
> 
> ...


So you have no problem with the government treating one citizen differently under the law than another? What if the government decides to tax people differently based on their skin color? Gender? Weight? 

What if it decides to set criminal sentences based on a person's income? After all if someone is making $75K a year and you lock him for 5 years up society is going to suffer, by the loss of taxes, than if you lock a person making $25K for 5 years. 

I'm sorry but IMO the government should have the same rules for everyone. Not one for this group, one for that group and still another for a third.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

watcher said:


> So you have no problem with the government treating one citizen differently under the law than another? What if the government decides to tax people differently based on their skin color? Gender? Weight?


That won't happen.



watcher said:


> What if it decides to set criminal sentences based on a person's income? After all if someone is making $75K a year and you lock him for 5 years up society is going to suffer, by the loss of taxes, than if you lock a person making $25K for 5 years.


More strawman arguments. It hasn't happen and it will never happen.



watcher said:


> I'm sorry but IMO the government should have the same rules for everyone. Not one for this group, one for that group and still another for a third.


Let's start by making those who make $110,100 and over pay the same percentage of their income on social security as those who make $11,000. Also lets stop treating income differently depending on how it's earned, ie the same tax rate on $100,000 worth of investment income versus income from a job. Fair is fair right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Those that want that sugar enough to pay extra for it! Those too stupid or stubborn to find alternatives. In other words tariffs lessen sales of those expatriot companies trying to use cheap labor yet have most of their market in the good ole USA.
> 
> Remember in capitalism, sales are where price curve intersects demand curve. Higher price, less demand, less money made by the greedy. Very few things have inelastic demand.
> 
> So the greedy make less money! Mission accomplished.


Have you checked on the number of people working in the US sugar industry since the tariff? I'm willing to bet you'll find the number has fallen. As someone pointed out corn syrup has replaced sugar in most things today. That means the huge sugar markets of Coke, Pepsi, General Mills and the rest are gone. 

And as I pointed out tariffs might have worked in the old world economy but not today. You raise the cost of selling a product in the US and there are plenty of other markets where you can sell them. Check out the number of cars, smart phones and the like being sold in China and India.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

poppy said:


> Good for you. It works out for some but hurts the masses.


Hardly 

It wasn't US companies _selling_ their product overseas that hurt the masses, it was US companies CREATING their product overseas that hurt the masses.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> What are they going to do? Repossess the US! They and other Asian countries have been putting tariffs on our products sent there for years.


No, what they do is stop loaning the US money. How long do you think the government could keep handing out all those checks if China stopped loaning us the money? IIRC, 40-60% of every dollar the US spends is borrowed. Think about a family or business suddenly losing 40-60% of their income. Do you think they could keep up their current lifestyle?

Also what do you think would happen if all those people expecting those checks were told there's no more money for them?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

poppy said:


> Good for you. It works out for some but hurts the masses. We've lost millions of jobs due to the global economy. When's the last time we ran a trade surplus?


Probably around the same time we had a truly balanced budget.


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

bignugly said:


> your argument that you made money a different way doesn't justify not paying taxon that income. The only reason the rich donate to the charity is for the tax right off not out of the goodness of their hearts.


First off I would like to differeniate between big corporations and wealthy individuals...What I have been talking about here are wealthy individuals...I happen to know several millionaires....very very close personal friends....I also happen to know a few billionaires personally...they may or may not represent the majority of their individiual groups...but I am close enough to them all to see how they live, and how they basically spend their money. Everyone can take the charitable deduction on their taxes...If you give a lot you get to deduct that...if you give a little you still get to deduct that. Why shouldn't the rich reduce their taxes by claiming their charitable donations...One of my close friends donated a new sanctuary to our church....believe me he spent more on that building that the tax credit he received....I personally know a member of congress that lives in a very modest home...it is very nice...but no mansion. It sounds to me like some people have a warped sense of just who millionaires are...people often put too much creedance in what they hear on tv...The average millionaire is a working American that has attained his/her wealth by legal means...and the vast majority have it because they earned it....I am sorry that there are so many poor in this country...but we all live in the same America...and we should all be taxed the same....And by the way...the rich I know do give from the bottom of their hearts...they give and they give and they give some more..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> People are forgetting Henry Ford's wisdom in raising his workers wages to $5 a day causing howls of outrage from other factory owners. But he got the cream of the crop in way of employees and his employees could actually afford to buy the consumer product he was selling.


And those good wages made for happy workers and they never would strike because how good he treated them. You might just want to read a bit of history.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Fair Light said:


> And by the way...the rich I know do give from the bottom of their hearts...they give and they give and they give some more..


That's great they do that. However I never understood the rich who gave a lot of money to charity yet their own employees are struggling to make ends meet. I worked for a company like that, it didn't make much sense to me. A lot of businesses are a combined effort of employee and employer. Wouldn't make more sense to reward those who have contributed to one's success?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Let's start by making those who make $110,100 and over pay the same percentage of their income on social security as those who make $11,000. Also lets stop treating income differently depending on how it's earned, ie the same tax rate on $100,000 worth of investment income versus income from a job. Fair is fair right?


Agree!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

PhilJohnson said:


> That won't happen.


Why not? The government already treats people differently based on skin color. Its called affirmative action. Why is it such a great leap to go from there to saying because of how blacks were treated in the past its only fair that they be given a "tax break"?




PhilJohnson said:


> More strawman arguments. It hasn't happen and it will never happen.


If we base our tax system on 'the good of socity' why not our criminal code as well?

You have more faith in government than I do. In the 60s would you have thought the government would have the power to tell you what kind of toilet you can buy? If someone told you the government was going to make it illegal to smoke in a bar would you have told them it would never do that? After all that had never happened. 




PhilJohnson said:


> Let's start by making those who make $110,100 and over pay the same percentage of their income on social security as those who make $11,000. Also lets stop treating income differently depending on how it's earned, ie the same tax rate on $100,000 worth of investment income versus income from a job. Fair is fair right?


Yep. I have given my basic view on it. You take the amount of money you have earned in the last 12 months (doesn't matter how you made it) multiply that number by 0.XX and send that amount to the government. That's it. No withholding, no deductions, no different rates, no "business" taxes. Everyone pays the same percentage on EVERY dollar they earn.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> Probably around the same time we had a truly balanced budget.


And taxes were higher...


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

watcher said:


> Why not? The government already treats people differently based on skin color. Its called affirmative action. Why is it such a great leap to go from there to saying because of how blacks were treated in the past its only fair that they be given a "tax break"?


Ok then, when that happens I'll eat my words. But considering the majority of wealthy people are white the chances of that happening are slim to none.



watcher said:


> If we base our tax system on 'the good of socity' why not our criminal code as well?


It sorta is already like that, almost collapse the world economy, get a bail out. Break into a house and steal a hundred bucks go to jail or prison.



watcher said:


> You have more faith in government than I do. In the 60s would you have thought the government would have the power to tell you what kind of toilet you can buy? If someone told you the government was going to make it illegal to smoke in a bar would you have told them it would never do that? After all that had never happened.


That has nothing to do with taxes and most of those issues you complain in that paragraph about are local issues, not federal ones. Take it up with your local officials, whining to Washington about toilets won't change anything.



watcher said:


> Yep. I have given my basic view on it. You take the amount of money you have earned in the last 12 months (doesn't matter how you made it) multiply that number by 0.XX and send that amount to the government. That's it. No withholding, no deductions, no different rates, no "business" taxes. Everyone pays the same percentage on EVERY dollar they earn.


Well I'm glad you aren't one of those hypocrites that goes around supporting flat tax except when it comes to any income that isn't generated by the traditional means (ie a job). I do not support flat tax, I also do not support a negative tax rate either as is the case with earned income credit. 

The only way a flat tax would work is if you are willing to spend more money on goods and services. Making everyone pay a flat tax doesn't mean the dude cleaning the toilets for 9 bucks an hour will suddenly get a huge pay raise and never have to rely on government assistance again. A flat tax won't eliminate low paying jobs in retail and grocery stores and replace them with jobs that have retirement benefits and good health insurance.


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

PhilJohnson said:


> That's great they do that. However I never understood the rich who gave a lot of money to charity yet their own employees are struggling to make ends meet. I worked for a company like that, it didn't make much sense to me. A lot of businesses are a combined effort of employee and employer. Wouldn't make more sense to reward those who have contributed to one's success?


YES...I agree with you...100%...One of the billionaires I know is my employer...I work for an individual doing private duty nursing...I am paid far more than I was working at a hospital....And they are VERY generous !!! There will always be "stingy" amongst the wealthy...Scrooge will always be there...but that doesn't mean that most of them are that way...


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

Wow 3 pages and not one person truly understands whats happened in this country. All I see now is rich vrs poor. Exactly what they wanted. I could probably type for hours about this subject but most wouldn't bother to read it. I will type a little bit though and I'll start off with the solution. 

First the solution. Follow the constitution. Our founding fathers didn't declare independence lightly. It was over a 3% tax. They also wanted control of our own money supply and not reply on the kings. Anyway, they weren't stupid people and they set forth some rules for the Government to follow. If we followed those rules we wouldnt be in this mess and certainly we wouldnt be debating amoungst ourselves if the rich pay enough or not. 

Taxes are supposed to be apportioned. Whats this mean? It means the federal Gov is supposed to set a budget and then apportion each state with their state according to the census. (Thats why we had a census to begin with) Why did they do this? So that the people of the country would keep the Gov from getting out of control. Hmm, maybe these guys were smarter than we give them credit for. If taxes are apportioned each state then collects from each citizen. When the feds try to spend to much the citizens revolt and kepp them in line. But they can revolt at the state level then the states go back to the feds and say you have a problem..

Has anyone read the tax code? Do you understand it? Do you understand what Income really is? Did you even know that neither congress nor the IRS can decide what income is? Only the SC can interpret that and they have on many occasions. Has anyone bothered to read the supporting Supreme court cases describing exactly what income is? I can tell by this thread that noone has. In fact I can tell by the way this country has that not even the tax attorneys nor accountants have. If they had we would have had a revolution long ago. 

"Income" is a profit or gain derived from capital. So when the IRS says income is all income from whatever source derived they are correct. You derive income from capital investment. It could be in the form of rental or stock market or business but you invest capital to earn income. 

Are wages taxable? Yes they are but what are wages? First you should also know that for any statute that congress writes they can define the term within a statute to mean whatever they want. I know its confusing and why so many people dont get involved much further than the generic terms. For example, congress can define apples to mean any orange grown in northwest Maine. Silly yes but that is within the power of congress to define a term. They have also defined what wages are. Wages are what any employee making a living off of the taxpayer earns. So if your salary comes from money paid in by the taxpayer they are considered wages. 

Did you know that in the late 1800's(Been awhile since I did the research but it was like 1880's or 1890's) the SC shot down a direct tax on peoples paychecks. It wasn't until the new deal came along with SS that money started being taken out of peoples paychecks directly. (Non Gov employees of course) Why is that? Because people 100 years ago knew and understood what "Income" was. 
Let me state for the record that the IRS codes as they are written is completely constitutional, however as they are enforced is unconstitutional. You also will never get a court to side with you on this issue and the SC will not take a tax case again. They say they have decided the matter and that's it. 

People flocked to this country because it was a free country and more than anything you were allowed to keep your pay and it wasn't subject to taxation. Your labor was a fair exchange for whatever the money was at the time (Gold and silver. Which by the way is also written into our constitution as real money and the value to be regulated by congress) Anyway, you could come here, work hard, save your money or not, invest it or not but it was yours to keep. If you saved it and then bought real estate and made money on RE or rental income it was then considered "Income" If you made money in the stock market it was also considered "Income" If you went to work everyday and went out drinking that was your business but the money you earned from working was not considered "Income" 

I've already written more than most will care to read and probably have shattered many illusions about the tax system so I'll stop there except to reiterate that the only way to fix this mess is a return to the constitution. The only reason I ring any of this up is to educate people on the truth about the tax scam. However, you still need to pay your taxes that they say you owe. Until a majority of the people truly understand the scam there will be no changing it. We will probably never change it at this point but it still interesting to know and understand our history and where we came from and how politicians truly stole the power from the people. 
There is no other solution other than what I have stated. No D or R will ever fix the budget mess or the spending mess. Only the people demanding a return to constitutional taxation will take the power away from Congress and that will immediately limit their spending. Of course the repercussions of that are a default on our debt and all promises made. It would be an end to SS, welfare and all the other waste we have. The upside is most would be able to afford healthcare again as the prices would plummet as would the prices of everything,IF we returned to the constitution.

Oh and by the way, I have spent around 2000 hours studying this subject and I'm still not an expert but certainly understand more than 99%.

Edited to add that it was this case in 1895 that said the income tax was unconstitutional. 

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The original post was not about what was fair taxing. That is almost always the same thing- taxing my income is unfair. Some want the government to do more so they want to increase taxes among those they think have more and they say that is fair. Others want the government to spend less so they don't have to pay for things that they don't see themselves receiving personally and they call that fair.
But, like all things, it comes down to what can be done, not what should be done. How can the rich be taxed more if the financial interests own Congressmen? How can more be spent for social progams if the debt eats up so much of the taxes that are collected?
Since we have been so irresponsible as to authorize spending without obtaining the money to pay for it and simultaneously give tax breaks like a rich uncle giving Christmas gifts, we are in a position of being unable to afford either. Not choosing one or the other but being unable to keep either going.
This means child tax credits and low capital gains both. 
What actually can, not should, but can be done? Anyone willing to let their own interests go in exchange for being with others doing the same? Even a little bit? For the sake of being in the same sinking boat?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

bignugly said:


> I am so tired of people that the rich have earned their money. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire. Every millionaire had help along the way! Even Bill Gates had help from IBM. Instead of reading articles from the Cato Institute, try reading about W.Clement Stone, you may learn something.


so who earned your money for you? 

You use public infrastructure to earn your living so I guess your money doesn't really belong to you either.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

bignugly said:


> The only reason the rich donate to the charity is for the tax right off not out of the goodness of their hearts.


because rich people are evil or just stupid? 

Your statement is inane. Donating to charity does reduce your taxes but not by the amount of the donation. If you are paying 35% in income taxes, and give $1.00 to charity, your tax bill will go down 35 cents. That's a pretty dumb way to simply avoid taxes.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> I have a simple solution, if a company wants to pay people so low that those workers have to rely on government assistance to make ends meet than the business should get a bill in the mail.


So let's see...you need a job done on your farm but if you hire a hand for a few weeks at $8/hr you know you will get a bill from the gov't for another $10/hr. What do you do? You probably do the job yourself, or maybe illegally under the table. 

Your plan would kill low skill jobs just like min wage laws do. Have you noticed that Blockbuster video is being replaced by Redbox? All those low wage jobs for high school and college aged kids are going away to be replaced by a machine. 

I would rather my 17 yr old daughter work for $5/hr and learn about the world of work than sit at home because do-gooders are protecting her from taking a non-living wage.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

PhilJohnson said:


> Ok then, when that happens I'll eat my words. But considering the majority of wealthy people are white the chances of that happening are slim to none.


Seeing as how the vast majority of 'people of color' vote democrat I disagree. Its just a matter of time til some pol sees how big of a vote buying idea this is.




PhilJohnson said:


> It sorta is already like that, almost collapse the world economy, get a bail out. Break into a house and steal a hundred bucks go to jail or prison.


Just look at it as "progressive sentencing" and you should have no problem with it. 




PhilJohnson said:


> That has nothing to do with taxes and most of those issues you complain in that paragraph about are local issues, not federal ones. Take it up with your local officials, whining to Washington about toilets won't change anything.


Ok, switch it to the light bulb you can buy.




PhilJohnson said:


> Well I'm glad you aren't one of those hypocrites that goes around supporting flat tax except when it comes to any income that isn't generated by the traditional means (ie a job). I do not support flat tax, I also do not support a negative tax rate either as is the case with earned income credit.


My flat tax plan would dramatically increase my own taxes. W/o deductions I'd be paying much more than the 3-6% I do now (The last time I checked the percentage would need to be 12% to equal what was currently being brought in). And no I'm not one of those who think others should pay more so I can pay less.




PhilJohnson said:


> The only way a flat tax would work is if you are willing to spend more money on goods and services.


Huh? As long as people are earning the same money the money brought in wouldn't change.




PhilJohnson said:


> Making everyone pay a flat tax doesn't mean the dude cleaning the toilets for 9 bucks an hour will suddenly get a huge pay raise and never have to rely on government assistance again. A flat tax won't eliminate low paying jobs in retail and grocery stores and replace them with jobs that have retirement benefits and good health insurance.


So? The tax system is there to generate income for the government not to be used to "fix social ills" as seen by those in power.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> Also lets stop treating income differently depending on how it's earned, ie the same tax rate on $100,000 worth of investment income versus income from a job. Fair is fair right?


OK, let's see if you think that is really fair.

You start a business, invest and risk your life savings, work 80 hours a week and get to the point you are making a $1000/week profit but you can't take that money out of the business because you need it to finance your accounts receivable. Assuming nothing goes wrong, you'll be able to cash out those profits in a few years. Fortunately your wife works so that your home bills can get paid. 

You are doing so well you decide to hire me and pay me an above average salary because I'm an above average guy with above average skills. I go to work for you and make $1000/week working 40 hours/week. 

And you want us to pay the same tax?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> so who earned your money for you?
> 
> You use public infrastructure to earn your living so I guess your money doesn't really belong to you either.


The government used my money to build that stuff therefore *-=*IT DOES BELONG TO ME*=-* After all w/o me earning money where would the government get its money?

Look at your argument logically. Which had to come first government or private industry? Private industry can function perfectly w/o government provided infrastructure. When the first 'settlers' arrived in the US what infrastructure was there? Now can government provided infrastructure survive w/o private industry? Before you answer I suggest you do a little reading on the Detroit and East St Louis.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Have you checked on the number of people working in the US sugar industry since the tariff? I'm willing to bet you'll find the number has fallen. As someone pointed out corn syrup has replaced sugar in most things today. That means the huge sugar markets of Coke, Pepsi, General Mills and the rest are gone.
> 
> And as I pointed out tariffs might have worked in the old world economy but not today. You raise the cost of selling a product in the US and there are plenty of other markets where you can sell them. Check out the number of cars, smart phones and the like being sold in China and India.



And have you noticed all the new USA jobs in the corn syrup industry that DIDNT EXIST before sugar tariffs. I am no fan of corn syrup, nasty unhealthy stuff. But with sugar tariffs on foreign sugar, new USA jobs were created with rise of a new substitute. TARIFFS=moreUSAjobs and lessFOREIGNjobs

Tariffs would still work just fine if anybody had the balls to implement them. Right now all the politicians are bought and paid for by BIG GLOBAL CORPORATIONS that make big bucks chasing cheap labor around the world. Guess what, politicians arent going to do anything those big contributors dont want them to do.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> And those good wages made for happy workers and they never would strike because how good he treated them. You might just want to read a bit of history.


They didnt strike UNTIL that $5 a day wage became substandard. Time passes, times change, INFLATION HAPPENS, things were different when they started striking. It didnt all happen in 6 month period as you insinuate. YEARS PASSED. Others got to paying as much or MORE THAN HENRY. Henry didnt want to up it further since he wasnt as dependent on his workers buying cars as he was when he implemented it. Others had to meet his wage standards in order to meet his wage standard so others could now buy his cars. Those FORD workers wanted to remain at top of the worker pay scale. Thus they striked.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

watcher said:


> Seeing as how the vast majority of 'people of color' vote democrat I disagree. Its just a matter of time til some pol sees how big of a vote buying idea this is.


Still a strawman argument. Affirmative action taxation hasn't happened and therefore not valid. We are not talking about what ifs.



watcher said:


> Just look at it as "progressive sentencing" and you should have no problem with it.


Another strawman argument. What is a fact is that the players in the financial markets almost derailed the world economy, got a bailout, and still received bonuses. Surely you don't agree with that.



watcher said:


> Ok, switch it to the light bulb you can buy.


This is about taxation not light bulbs. 



watcher said:


> My flat tax plan would dramatically increase my own taxes. W/o deductions I'd be paying much more than the 3-6% I do now (The last time I checked the percentage would need to be 12% to equal what was currently being brought in). And no I'm not one of those who think others should pay more so I can pay less.


Wonderful. 



watcher said:


> Huh? As long as people are earning the same money the money brought in wouldn't change.


I ask what do you think would happen when the working poor suddenly has their disposable income go down to zero or less? Originally the government during the Great Depression thought that all the relief should come from private charity. The no social program solution was tried already. It didn't work.



watcher said:


> So? The tax system is there to generate income for the government not to be used to "fix social ills" as seen by those in power.


If you are so concerned about fair taxation I suggest moving to Mexico. Because the government down there has implemented a lot of the stuff that you and others seem to think will work so wonderfully up here. Taxes are low, public workers are paid less, the social safety net is near non-existent, and low regulatory demands. Plus there are no Unions. Just be sure not to get shot and don't forget some extra bribe money for corrupt underpaid government workers.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> And you want us to pay the same tax?


Do you want a flat tax rate?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Well- than anwers my question- nothing will be done until there is no choice.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Private industry can function perfectly w/o government provided infrastructure.


Name a company that can provide its own highways & bridges, airports, seaports, postal service, water & sewer, education for its technical staff (elementary school and up), national defense, and even fire & police protection. Don't they owe us consideration for at least some of those things?


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

PhilJohnson said:


> {treating people differently by color, gender, weight} won't happen.


What an odd thing to say. It has happened in the past. It is happening now. Please familiarize yourself better with the laws, regulations and tax code.


I'm all for a fair tax:
1) flat tax on income - all income, no treating capital gains differently from earned income
2) flat national sales tax on consumption - all sales, no exceptions
3) ony one deduction: a personal deduction for each person claimed on the return (regardless of marital status, age, etc - if they're on the return then their income is also on the return which is how Vermont does it.)

No home mortgage deduction. I hear screaming. Yeah, yeah. Realize that the home mortgage deduction distorts the market, raises the prices of homes, encourages bad lending and miss-placed anticipation of values. It's a subsidy. Eliminate it. While we're at it lets eliminate all the subsidies.

You wanted simple and fair? Get rid of all the deductions except one poverty level personal deduction for each person. Poverty level is currently set at about $11,000 for the first person. Make that the deduction for each person. This will make the Dems a little happy (wouldn't want them too happy) by making it progressive. 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines

No corporate tax (income is taxed at the individual level and must be dispersed each year).
No SS tax.
No Medicare/M tax.
No WC tax.
No other taxes.

Keep it simple.

This has the advantage of almost totally eliminating the IRS and many other agencies saving a huge amount of money and will bring in a fair tax. It also eliminates any need for armies of tax lawyers, accountants, etc. Let them find useful productive work rather than dodging taxes. The economy would be far more productive if these jobs were gone.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

The reason corn syrup took over the market was in the late 70`s they figured out how to process it cheaper buy using an industrial solvent that is a known cancer causer to wash the sugar from the corn in a cheaper way then before plus with all the gov subsides to the corn industries it made it cheaper to use it so companies switched to it over sugar. Oh they say they evaporate all the solvent off so the syrup is safe...... right...


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> The government used my money to build that stuff therefore *-=*IT DOES BELONG TO ME*=-* After all w/o me earning money where would the government get its money?
> 
> Look at your argument logically. Which had to come first government or private industry? Private industry can function perfectly w/o government provided infrastructure. When the first 'settlers' arrived in the US what infrastructure was there? Now can government provided infrastructure survive w/o private industry? Before you answer I suggest you do a little reading on the Detroit and East St Louis.


Hey watcher, sorry, I was being sarcastic. I agree with you. You earned your money, paid the taxes per the law each year, and the fruits of your labor are yours. 

I don't think success should be punished. Slapping someone with a fine because they were successful, gave people jobs, paid taxes, and provided a needed service or product to their community is just the opposite incentive the gov't should provide


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> Do you want a flat tax rate?


On earned income (labor from wages) yes. There should be a lower rate for investment income otherwise you will create a powerful incentive for people to not invest in businesses that create jobs. 

If you risk your savings to buy a tractor to farm your land and make $1000 and I risk nothing to make the same amount, your risk is punished if we pay the same tax.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

watcher said:


> No, what they do is stop loaning the US money. How long do you think the government could keep handing out all those checks if China stopped loaning us the money? IIRC, 40-60% of every dollar the US spends is borrowed. Think about a family or business suddenly losing 40-60% of their income. Do you think they could keep up their current lifestyle?
> 
> Also what do you think would happen if all those people expecting those checks were told there's no more money for them?


They stop giving us money, we stop importing their goods. US consumers are still a large part of the world market and if you close that market to them, they are done too!


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Fair Light said:


> YES...I agree with you...100%...One of the billionaires I know is my employer...I work for an individual doing private duty nursing...I am paid far more than I was working at a hospital....And they are VERY generous !!! There will always be "stingy" amongst the wealthy...Scrooge will always be there...but that doesn't mean that most of them are that way...


Do you read newspapers? It was just reported that millionaires and billionaires are hoarding 3 times as much money as they were 2 years ago. Your generous boss is NOT the norm and you know that.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

highlands said:


> What an odd thing to say. It has happened in the past. It is happening now. Please familiarize yourself better with the laws, regulations and tax code.


I am not aware of any such legislative efforts to try and create separate tax brackets for separate races. Please post a link to either a statute or pending legislation, I would be interested in reading it.



CesumPec said:


> On earned income (labor from wages) yes. There should be a lower rate for investment income otherwise you will create a powerful incentive for people to not invest in businesses that create jobs.


Taxes on the Federal level have been lowest they have in the past 50 years. Where are the jobs?



CesumPec said:


> If you risk your savings to buy a tractor to farm your land and make $1000 and I risk nothing to make the same amount, your risk is punished if we pay the same tax.


If I buy a tractor and make a 1000 dollars profit not only am I hit with the normal payroll taxes but I also have to pay self employment tax as well. However if I took a job as a CEO of a large company and got most of my compensation in stock options not only would I not have to pay zero self employment tax I would also pay the much lower capital gains tax rate. That doesn't seem right to me. Who is taking the bigger risk? The farmer or the CEO? Who will be burned worse if things don't go right? I think you know the answer to that.

I ask the question when has large income inequality ever created a vibrant successful stable country? We have a lot of problems, there is a lot of talk thrown around about saddling children with debt. I hear this a lot from 50-60 year old people. I'm in my 20s, I'll get to reap the rewards of a dysfunctional political system that thinks cutting education and creating desperation among the working poor will some how lead to a brighter and stable future. 

When people talk about the government taking their money I hope they didn't drive to work using public roads, were educated in public schools, eat food that is not subsidized by the government, ect.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

PhilJohnson said:


> Taxes on the Federal level have been lowest they have in the past 50 years. Where are the jobs?
> 
> *Ask yer buddy Obama.
> *
> ...


No one is arguing for zero taxes, just a fair tax rate, fair as in maybe 20% total between local, state, and fed. So don't give me that commie whine about public roads and such. That same argument has been used to justify from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

If people were forced to pay what the government actually is spending, we'd have another revolution.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

bignugly said:


> Do you read newspapers? It was just reported that millionaires and billionaires are hoarding 3 times as much money as they were 2 years ago. Your generous boss is NOT the norm and you know that.


Its their money they can do what they want with it. I could care less. 

That stingy boss also provides you a job, pays 1/2 of your SS, pays you for vacation, pays if he has to lay you off even. He may even be paying for your overpriced insurance so you can go get overpriced medical care.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

The bottom line is if we returned to constitutional taxation and got the Gov out of the way everyone would be working that wants to work. 

The Gov creates nothing without taking away from someone else. To say otherwise is all an illusion. How much does 1 60k a year Gov job cost the taxpayer? With benies and retirement almost twice that amount. How many people have to pay into the system to pay for that Gov employee and how would that money be better spent in the economy? Me deciding where to spend my money is way more efficient than some Gov deciding how to spend my money for me. 

The Gov knows this too, that's why they haven't raised taxes. To do so is suicide for the economy. Whats left of it anyway.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Thing is we are part of a single nation. Not a bunch of independent islands in loose confederation in times of war. 

If some rich guy claims to have built his company himself, I challenge him to show me where he did this all with only his own labor. Sorry, but you ever use somebody else's labor for any part of it, you didnt do it alone. You were the facilitator, not the sole creator. That psychotic God complex really messes with your brain.

You ignore the poor and do the "mine, mine, MINE!!!!!!" greed thing and pretty soon they get hungry enough to eat the rich. Then you have nothing, not even your life. 
Majority of dictators come to a pretty nasty end. Eventually they push just a little too far. And all the guns and ammo and hired guards in the world doesnt end up saving them. Hard to scare somebody that has nothing to lose.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

lurnin2farm said:


> The bottom line is if we returned to constitutional taxation and got the Gov out of the way everyone would be working that wants to work.


Yep 95% of the people fighting over a few crumbs. Those hiring offer the least amount possible and open flood gates to immigration to dilute any bargaining power the working class has. This isnt the 18th/19th century where if you didnt like working for rich guy crumbs, you could sweat labor homestead the newly stolen Indian lands. There is no longer such an outlet for frustration. Land is very expensive. And there are LOT more people.

The Mexicans are in this predicament, but they had the wealthy northern neighbor country to sneak in and offer to work cheaper.  Do we then sneak into Canada and clean their toilets for sub minimum wage?

Sorry but concentrated wealth doesnt make for a strong society nor living wage jobs. Our strongest periods in history have been when income disparity has been the smallest. This doesnt happen automagically, getting rid of govt means wealth concentrates in hands of few as well as political power. Until people get to point they havent anything to lose and they rise up and eat the rich.

No doubt if we had not offered under the table jobs to illegal Mexican immigrants, there would have been a revolution there. Many had nothing to lose, life sucks so why support status quo.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> Ask yer buddy Obama.


I didn't vote for Obama last election and I am not voting for him this election. Take off your partisan glasses, the decline in wages started way before he came into office.



CesumPec said:


> As someone who has started several companies and taken much of my compensation on the future value of stock options and risked everything my family had on such ventures, I don't see a lot of difference. There are big problems with CEO salaries of publicly traded companies but there are only a few hundred of those.


Great you risked everything. I had a small business too. I had to pay all the taxes that an employee would pay plus self employment tax. There are hundreds of thousands of small business owners/self employed who also risked everything just like you and unlike you they didn't get their compensation the way you did. Your risk shouldn't be treated any differently because of how you got your compensation. 



CesumPec said:


> Ummm, England, USA, Rome, Hong Kong. In the last hundred years, the economies that grew the fastest and created the most wealth for all their citizens were the most free economies, not economies that punished business creators, risk takers, and success.


Ummm, Hong Kong wasn't a country and still isn't , Rome collapsed, England has always had higher taxes than the USA and socialized medicine since the 1930s, and the government of the USA taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate in the 1950s. Also the US government encouraged Unions during the 1930s, came up with a litany of regulation around that time too. And let's not forget that the rural electrification act also came out that time period. 



CesumPec said:


> No one is arguing for zero taxes, just a fair tax rate, fair as in maybe 20% total between local, state, and fed. So don't give me that commie whine about public roads and such. That same argument has been used to justify from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.


I find it ironic that you give me a line about whining like a commie while you argue with me using what was originally a government funded program aka the internet. Feel free to keep up with the hypocrisy comrade.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

I saw a video on You tube not long ago. He pointed out that if you took 100% from every fortune 500 company, every millionaire, billionaire, every franchised sports team, everything penny of profit. You could run the Gov for less than 1 year. 

It might make people feel better but take away any incentive to make money and see how high the unemployment rate goes. 

The Gov doesnt have an income problem, They have plenty coming in. They have a spending problem. 

It's like you and I making 100k a year and spending 220k. The difference is you and I can see that we have a spending problem and if we go to the banks and say we need to borrow more money because we can afford to make the payments anymore, the bank would laugh at us. 

When the Gov does this exact same thing the banks gladly give it to them.



> Yep 95% of the people fighting over a few crumbs. Those hiring offer the least amount possible and open flood gates to immigration to dilute any bargaining power the working class has.


 And the Gov has made this possible. They made laws that make it more and more difficult for the small business to survive let alone thrive. This country was very successful because of the small businessman and women. They have always been the backbone of society. Gov regulations and big box stores are doing away with that. Don't do business with the big box store and keep your money flowing to the small businessman and things would change. Of course Gov overspending leads to inflation which makes it more difficult to support the local guy and easier to walk into wal mart and save 20%. I did go to wal mart about 2 months ago with a neighbor. He walked out with a cart full of crap, I was out for under 20.00. I hate wal mart, home depot, lowes, all of em. Last year I had to buy a stove. I could have got one at a big box store for almost 1/2 the price I did but I wanted to support the local guy instead. Was much better quality of course but still paid a lot more.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

lurnin2farm said:


> I saw a video on You tube not long ago. He pointed out that if you took 100% from every fortune 500 company, every millionaire, billionaire, every franchised sports team, everything penny of profit. You could run the Gov for less than 1 year.


Top 10 in the fortune 500:

1	Exxon Mobil	
2	Wal-Mart Stores	
3	Chevron	
4	ConocoPhillips	
5	General Motors	
6	General Electric
7	Berkshire Hathaway	
8	Fannie Mae	
9	Ford Motor	
10	Hewlett-Packard

Out of the top ten Fortune 500 companies only three have not benefited directly from government. The government gives subsidies out for oil and natural gas exploration. Wal-Mart's grocery side receives a lot of money from food stamp recipients. Also most hourly Wal-Mart employees are receiving some sort of government assistance. General Motors got a bail out from the Feds, ditto for Fannie Mae and General Electric. Out of the three that are left local, state, and federal governments buy Ford Motor vehicles so they benefit as well. Berkshire Hathaway does not benefit directly off of tax payer funds but some of their holdings do. Which leaves us with Hewlett-Packard. And that is just in the top 10. I trust you can see the conflict of interest that could arise when it comes to writing legislation.



lurnin2farm said:


> It might make people feel better but take away any incentive to make money and see how high the unemployment rate goes.


No one is talking about taking any incentive to make money away. Just a return to the historical norm for taxation. 



lurnin2farm said:


> The Gov doesnt have an income problem, They have plenty coming in. They have a spending problem.


Don't deny there is a spending problem. Wars and no bid contracts are expensive no doubt. And I question the wisdom of giving out public funds to profitable business ventures such as the oil and natural gas sector.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

LOL oh that makes me Laugh Out Loud for sure.
Mobil/Exxon is not the number one company in the world. They are not the number one most valuable company at all.
Just that some love to diss big oil for some reason. LOL
And The Number one most valuable company in the World is NOT even Mentioned. I think that is soooo funny.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> LOL oh that makes me Laugh Out Loud for sure.
> Mobil/Exxon is not the number one company in the world. They are not the number one most valuable company at all.
> Just that some love to diss big oil for some reason. LOL
> And The Number one most valuable company in the World is NOT even Mentioned. I think that is soooo funny.


LOL, you must have a reading comprehension problem. Go read it yourself 

Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

BTW Fortune 500 is a ranking of the top companies in the USA.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

PhilJohnson said:


> LOL, you must have a reading comprehension problem. Go read it yourself
> 
> Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com
> 
> BTW Fortune 500 is a ranking of the top companies in the USA.


LOL
Already the world's most valuable company, Apple Inc. saw its stock hit $644.13 in morning trading Friday, before retreating to $642.

The previous high for the stock was $644, hit on April 10.

*Apple has a market value of $602 billion, almost 50 percent higher than No. 2 Exxon Mobil Corp. at $408 billion.*

*Apple Overtakes Exxon Becoming Worldâs Most Valuable Company*

*Apple Trumps Exxon To Become Most Valuable U.S. Company*

Apple Trumps Exxon To Become Most Valuable U.S. Company


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> LOL
> Already the world's most valuable company, Apple Inc. saw its stock hit $644.13 in morning trading Friday, before retreating to $642.
> 
> The previous high for the stock was $644, hit on April 10.
> ...


Funny I last I checked market value and revenue are two different things. Since you didn't read it the last time be sure to check the revenue portion of the Fortune 500 list. I wasn't very good at math but I am pretty sure that *Exxon's 452,926 million in revenue is more than Apple's 108,249 million dollars in revenue*. However I guess if you want profit versus profit once again using my very limited math skills I would have to say *Exxon's 41,060 million dollar profit is significantly higher than Apple's 25,922 million dollar profit.* Here is that link again in case you couldn't find it the first time. I suggest you read it before doing some more misinformed loling.

Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> .Originally Posted by CesumPec
> Ummm, England, USA, Rome, Hong Kong. In the last hundred years, the economies that grew the fastest and created the most wealth for all their citizens were the most free economies, not economies that punished business creators, risk takers, and success.


I think your missing something here. 
A key point that the rich just dont seem to get.
The PEOPLE are not rich or even well moderately well off for the most part.
A rich vibrant economey that has most of the people poor is not what we want.
Wealth math.
The wealth of the country is
Population TIMES education and resources.
But the wealth of the people is
Resources diveded by population times education.
THE key to stability is the bigger porportion of the population with a average share of the wealth the better


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

PhilJohnson said:


> Funny I last I checked market value and revenue are two different things. Since you didn't read it the last time be sure to check the revenue portion of the Fortune 500 list. I wasn't very good at math but I am pretty sure that *Exxon's 452,926 million in revenue is more than Apple's 108,249 million dollars in revenue*. However I guess if you want profit versus profit once again using my very limited math skills I would have to say *Exxon's 41,060 million dollar profit is significantly higher than Apple's 25,922 million dollar profit.* Here is that link again in case you couldn't find it the first time. I suggest you read it before doing some more misinformed loling.
> 
> Fortune 500 2012: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com


That list by 500 was back in MAY.
So it still doesn't change the fact that Apple is number one NOW.
And they even have One Billion that is a B One Billion In Cash on hand.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Yep 95% of the people fighting over a few crumbs.


Yes, and that's what needs to change. This country can't be top in the world without a robust middle class. That's what the fight should be about, not making the wealthy wealthier.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

All of us getting poorer is the plan. Again, big Gov is to blame. Those that are dependent on Gov are easier to control. The more fear and stress people have the easier they are to control. When this country was booming after the 2nd world war, we were able to do so even with the rest of the world in poverty. Nafta and Cafta put an end to that for good along with exporting our manufacturing overseas. 

The rich all know this too. They were the first to leave. Have a look at Detroit or most other major manufacturing cities. They boom for awhile. Then the deadbeats figure out the handouts are hearty in those places and they move in. Taxes go up to support them and manufacturing leaves. Again, another failed Gov program. 
One thing is certain, I wouldn't want to be in a major city when the announcement comes that there is no more money for these programs. 

At this point in the game all that matters is that these programs keep going. When the rest of the world stops lending to us everything turns to poo. First we will print and then go into hyperinflation. Then it all collapses because the money is worthless. All these issues, rich vrs poor, dem vrs rep, its all a distraction to keep everyone fighting about nothing while they burn everything else down.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> That list by 500 was back in MAY.
> So it still doesn't change the fact that Apple is number one NOW.
> And they even have One Billion that is a B One Billion In Cash on hand.


Some more suggested reading:

Price To Earnings Ratio

Don't waste your keystrokes about things that you obviously don't understand. I'll give you a cliff-notes version, share price can be independent of what a company earns. Witness the recent IPO of Facebook, I'd also suggest reading about the dot com crash for a good lesson when the PE ratio is no longer based on reality.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> But Greece & Italy's credit card balance is twice what ours is, based in percent of GDP.


I find this silly. Our situations are different for one thing. We have already been warned about our spending habits and will face higher interest rates on this burden we force onto the unborn. We also have a poorly managed dollar and both the IMF and BRICS nations already openly talking about working on replacing it as the reserve currency because of this which would end our games over night. 

whats your point exactly, we can strap our kids down to a bit more debt so its all ok? 

We should be living within our means. Its that simple. Tax levels are another talk entirely imo, whatever they are, we should only go beyond that in times of real crisis. 

I see many issues here. Our middle class is loosing its wealth, this is most directly related imo to two major issues. the poor management of the dollar, and the global economies effects of chasing the cheapest labor. We Dont HAVE to water ourselves down, or compete with slaves. We dont have to use fractional reserve banking. If we hadnt done these things the middle class would be much stronger.


so instead we now subsidize the lower and middle classes with debt burdens on our children, ensuring we each steal a bit of everything they ever earn. this is horrendous and arrogant. imo. 

It also serves the wealthy some despise very well. People keep they lifestyle they expect, while our actual wealth diminishes and is funded in large part with debt. Our entire society is structured on this debt model. It simply cant last forever. It will fail. we will leave our kids a much darker future because of our arrogance and naivety. 

funding more social programs wont help us. Not long term. might as well go to the school yards and beat up the kids for their milk money. We need to put value back into the dollar, and we need to stop setting up paradigms that drive up the costs of goods, along with tariffs and other means to keep slave made goods from subverting our own nations workers. 

As for taxation, my personal favorite plan is a sales tax. I believe the number given is 23%. You give EVERY person rich or poor the cash up to the taxes they would pay at the poverty level. The IRS is suddenly a fraction of the size. suddenly the work you do on the side doesnt need scrutinized, and black market cash is now taxes. We lower the need for the social programs so many now rely on. there are no loopholes. 

truth is we cant sustain our wars, nor can we sustain social programs such as medicaid and medicare. the numbers simply dont add up, no matter the tax levels. it will fail. especially since the dollars current role is in question. cutting them will hurt, not cutting them will hurt much worse in time. 

A healthy economy cant happen without a healthy middle class, and a middle class cannot stand when it relies on unsustainable government spending and robbing from our own childrens mouths. We should be working at leaving our kids a better world then we found, not a heavy burden and yoke to support our current lifestyle. Its a sad way to run a society. 

So taxing the wealthy for more government spending is no solution. not a real long term one anyway. rebuilding the middle class and having a dollar of real value is. Only reason the dollar holds the value it does is because most other currencies are in worse trouble, and the dollar is the reserve currency, a role thats literally already in question. 

Its true, fractional reserve lending enabled us to expand faster, it will also mean a more complete fall when the music stops and we run around looking for chairs. the natural booms and busts that the economy had before this were much healthier and left us a nation of savers rather then borrowers. much stronger and more resilient on all fronts. 

We will indeed face the music one day. wont be pretty. in fact if you study debt vs. the IMF you will see the wealthy, the TRULY wealthy, the global players use debt over and over, coupled with socialized programs that lead everyone onto the teat to leave a nation vulnerable and at the whim of the big players. in the end begging for scraps from their own resources usually. Many third world nations are simply kept on their knees in this way, often with puppet leaders who do as the big boys want. (or disappear, it happened) always those international players end up on top. heck it was a massive propaganda campaign that gave us the idea this race to the bottom we call globalization is inevitable, and eroded away our sovereignty with among other things, stuff like our free trade agreements. (which obama is working on another currently) none of this is inevitable, we dont have to compete with slaves, heck they can even build up their own middle class if they had a way to earna nd retain wealth, rather then relying on the gov, often with unsustainable systems that eventually end and leave them in shacks. 

Oh well.... we are to far down this path, most simply dont see how we got here, and not that I know everything, but most simply arent looking the right directions imo, left AND right.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

One thing you always learn from a thread like this is that there are a lot of people who don't understand how money works. That information is easily available, folks, if you'd care to learn.

There are also a lot of people who insist they know all about the rich and are repeating rumors and probably have never know a rich person in their life. But that won't stop them from making things up and spreading untruths.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

silverseeds said:


> whats your point exactly, we can strap our kids down to a bit more debt so its all ok?


Debt to GDP was the highest right after WWII. It is lower now. Is there a problem yes, but cutting taxes will exacerbate the problem not improve it. If you were having trouble paying your bills would you work less hours on top of cutting your own personal budget?



silverseeds said:


> I see many issues here. Our middle class is loosing its wealth, this is most directly related imo to two major issues. the poor management of the dollar, and the global economies effects of chasing the cheapest labor. We Dont HAVE to water ourselves down, or compete with slaves. We dont have to use fractional reserve banking. If we hadnt done these things the middle class would be much stronger.


There are many reasons why the middle class is fading, the number one reason is that blue collar jobs do not pay what they used to. People used to talk about education being the silver bullet but now wages for the educated are falling as well. And while people are making less they are being asked to pay more for retirement and health insurance. It shouldn't be too tough to figure out what the consequences will be. 



silverseeds said:


> so instead we now subsidize the lower and middle classes with debt burdens on our children, ensuring we each steal a bit of everything they ever earn. this is horrendous and arrogant. imo.


We the taxpayer subsidize the lower class because no one wants to pay people what they are worth. People hire illegal labor, outsource jobs, and cut the pay of those who are left. Government has been making up for the short fall that the private industry has not been willing to put out.



silverseeds said:


> funding more social programs wont help us. Not long term. might as well go to the school yards and beat up the kids for their milk money. We need to put value back into the dollar, and we need to stop setting up paradigms that drive up the costs of goods, along with tariffs and other means to keep slave made goods from subverting our own nations workers.


The modern world is what it is. We have choices, thus far it has been we don't want to pay a lot of taxes but we expect a lot back. Now the pendulum has swung from that to the current we don't want to pay a lot of taxes and we are worried about the debt but don't cut anything I like or agree with. See the problem? We can get rid of social programs, but I don't think anyone can stomach the consequences of such. Destitute elderly, starving people, and general civic unrest. We can force private companies to pay people enough not to have to rely on social programs, but then everyone would have to pay more for goods and services. 

We are all in this together, no man is an island and no rich man can exist without the labor of the masses. History forgotten is history repeated, income inequality and mass poverty has always led to unrest.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Yes, and that's what needs to change. This country can't be top in the world without a robust middle class. That's what the fight should be about, not making the wealthy wealthier.


Take a look at a book called "The Servant Economy" by Jeff Faux if you get the chance.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

PhilJohnson said:


> Debt to GDP was the highest right after WWII. It is lower now. Is there a problem yes, but cutting taxes will exacerbate the problem not improve it. If you were having trouble paying your bills would you work less hours on top of cutting your own personal budget?


I never said we should cut taxes. We also live in a vastly different country then we did then, one that expanded immensely since that time, both economically and by the number of people. there is simply no comparison in the world. 


> There are many reasons why the middle class is fading, the number one reason is that blue collar jobs do not pay what they used to. People used to talk about education being the silver bullet but now wages for the educated are falling as well. And while people are making less they are being asked to pay more for retirement and health insurance. It shouldn't be too tough to figure out what the consequences will be.


Not at all. The slow steady inflation took away much more of that. In fact we make more then ever as far as numbers of dollars go. As for what your talking about, much of it is indeed because we are now competing with the slaves. The education part is just wrong. Otherwise wed be great, we are the most educated generation to date. Simply saying we make less doesnt tell us why we make less. Taken from a value of what our dollars but position the things I listed are very clearly major keys, imo anyway. 




> We the taxpayer subsidize the lower class because no one wants to pay people what they are worth. People hire illegal labor, outsource jobs, and cut the pay of those who are left. Government has been making up for the short fall that the private industry has not been willing to put out.


You really partly on track with what I was saying here, except that your not realizing it seems that its a failed paradigm in our current model when we must pile this load onto our kids. If we covered these expenses in real time right or wrong it wouldnt be crushing us over decades of it piled up. We cant fund this mentality on the backs of our children, at the expense of the dollar itself. The dollar is being rejected as well which could pull the rug out much faster. 

Really back in carters day is when we really should have faced the music. small government reagan :teehee: and all those since simply have expanded the size and scope of government literally to block the inevitable reset we needed. there was no other way, besides heading back to sound money at that time of course. And ending the race to the bottom we call globalization etc, the illegals, the outsourcing of work etc. Many miss this because of the boom of the 90s, but that was simply because many new industries, along with the effects of having greatly expanded spending. We might have been okay at that point if we had continued on the path partly set in clintons era though. instead bush took us much deeper into this whole mess, and obama has magnified it again. 


> The modern world is what it is. We have choices, thus far it has been we don't want to pay a lot of taxes but we expect a lot back. Now the pendulum has swung from that to the current we don't want to pay a lot of taxes and we are worried about the debt but don't cut anything I like or agree with. See the problem? We can get rid of social programs, but I don't think anyone can stomach the consequences of such. Destitute elderly, starving people, and general civic unrest. We can force private companies to pay people enough not to have to rely on social programs, but then everyone would have to pay more for goods and services.


The further we go here im wondering if you are even talking to me. Of course I see the problem with this. i sure never said we should cut xyz over abc, we need systemwide cuts. it will indeed hurt really bad. Probably need higher taxes as well, which hurts even more. Hence the nature of my entire post. I literally think its probably to late, we are to deep into this paradigm, left and right o few are looking at the underlying issues imo. It will probably fall before we build back something that works. 



> We are all in this together, no man is an island and no rich man can exist without the labor of the masses. History forgotten is history repeated, income inequality and mass poverty has always led to unrest.


Yes history repeats, and Ive studied that history. The true wealthy know exactly how to pull our strings and lead us down the exact path we followed, always ends in the same pattern as well. (with them usually on top, excluding the times they are ripped apart by mobs) Heck the same thing happened in scores of third world nations in a very similar pattern only recently. 

The founders of this nation knew all this, and though it didnt last long and they had a few bugs in their plans (slavery and women voting being the biggest probably) they attempted to design a system here this was much less likely. We eroded away WHY that patterning would have worked however, and then followed all the same paths of civilizations before us. cycle of civilizations as some call it. Apparently there really is no escaping it. Or atleast we havent figured it out just yet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Take a look at a book called "The Servant Economy" by Jeff Faux if you get the chance.


I just read a summary of the book. Yes, it seems to get to the topic we need to talk about.

What's always fascinated me is how many people who are not wealthy rise-up in defense of tax breaks and friendly regulations for the wealthy. They don't seem to care that they're being subjugated by the same people they defend. They also seem to hold-out a belief that trickle-down economics is going to work, despite repeated failure and obvious evidence that it only makes the wealthy wealthier.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

silverseeds said:


> I never said we should cut taxes.
> We also live in a vastly different country then we did then, one that expanded immensely since that time, both economically and by the number of people. there is simply no comparison in the world.


That is very true. Things have gotten more complicated, and there are whole new segments of the economy that didn't exist then. There is much hand wringing now about the debt, no doubt it is a problem but then unlike now the people realized that taxes needed to increase to help pay for it. Also there were huge infrastructure improvements that were undertaken such as the interstate system. I have a feeling if people had the attitude then as we do now there would have been no man on the moon, we'd all be driving on two lane highways, and wallowing in a huge mountain of debt.



silverseeds said:


> Not at all. The slow steady inflation took away much more of that. In fact we make more then ever as far as numbers of dollars go. As for what your talking about, much of it is indeed because we are now competing with the slaves. The education part is just wrong. Otherwise wed be great, we are the most educated generation to date. Simply saying we make less doesnt tell us why we make less. Taken from a value of what our dollars but position the things I listed are very clearly major keys, imo anyway.


Your point would carry more punch if everyone was feeling the brunt of inflation. Slow steady inflation has not hurt the wealthy at all. In fact their wealth has increased even when adjusted to inflation above and beyond the middle class and working poor. 



silverseeds said:


> You really partly on track with what I was saying here, except that your not realizing it seems that its a failed paradigm in our current model when we must pile this load onto our kids. If we covered these expenses in real time right or wrong it wouldnt be crushing us over decades of it piled up. We cant fund this mentality on the backs of our children, at the expense of the dollar itself. The dollar is being rejected as well which could pull the rug out much faster.


I used to think that the rug was going to be pulled out from under the dollar any day. But in light of everyone else's problems it seems to be a very faint possibility. The dollar is still the best currency in the world even with all our problems. We have a very strange phenomenon, wage stagflation even deflation coupled with commodity inflation. It's easy to see where the money from wages have went, up to the one percent. If this wasn't true than the wealthy would be loosing wealth as well. That has not happened.



silverseeds said:


> Really back in carters day is when we really should have faced the music. small government reagan :teehee: and all those since simply have expanded the size and scope of government literally to block the inevitable reset we needed. there was no other way, besides heading back to sound money at that time of course. And ending the race to the bottom we call globalization etc, the illegals, the outsourcing of work etc. Many miss this because of the boom of the 90s, but that was simply because many new industries, along with the effects of having greatly expanded spending. We might have been okay at that point if we had continued on the path partly set in clintons era though. instead bush took us much deeper into this whole mess, and obama has magnified it again.


Agreed.



silverseeds said:


> Of course I see the problem with this. i sure never said we should cut xyz over abc, we need systemwide cuts. it will indeed hurt really bad. Probably need higher taxes as well, which hurts even more. Hence the nature of my entire post. I literally think its probably to late, we are to deep into this paradigm, left and right o few are looking at the underlying issues imo. It will probably fall before we build back something that works.


There needs to be certain cuts, there also needs to be a realization that some things do not function so hot solely under the purview of private companies but I won't mention those things because that is a debate for another day. I have talked to a lot of older people (60s-80 year olds) and it is pretty obvious that without modern social programs they would be destitute. Those people built the nation we enjoy today. I do not think it is too much to ask to take care of those who took care of us. 

I have no problem with paying more for SS, Medicare/Medicaid to preserve it for myself, my hypothetical unborn children, and those who are truly disabled. However that fund should not be used for any other purpose other than to pay beneficiaries. No stupid accounting tricks using those funds to make it look like the budget is balanced or using it to fund tax cuts elsewhere. I do have a problem with people receiving tax returns higher than what they paid out (EIC). Rewarding people in poverty for having more children needs to be stopped and it carries a whole host of economic and social issues as well. I do have a problem with investment income being treated differently than earned income. I do have a problem with subsidizing private businesses that are hugely profitable. I have a problem with no bid contracts. I could go on all day. There is a lot of fat that needs to be cut and should be cut. We as a nation need to focus on how to get the private sector out of it's dysfunctional rut, it might mean higher taxes on some things and lower taxes on other things. More regulation for large players and scaling back regulations for the little guy. Increased globalization and mega-corporations have not been good for the middle class.



silverseeds said:


> Yes history repeats, and Ive studied that history. The true wealthy know exactly how to pull our strings and lead us down the exact path we followed, always ends in the same pattern as well. (with them usually on top, excluding the times they are ripped apart by mobs) Heck the same thing happened in scores of third world nations in a very similar pattern only recently.
> 
> The founders of this nation knew all this, and though it didnt last long and they had a few bugs in their plans (slavery and women voting being the biggest probably) they attempted to design a system here this was much less likely. We eroded away WHY that patterning would have worked however, and then followed all the same paths of civilizations before us. cycle of civilizations as some call it. Apparently there really is no escaping it. Or atleast we havent figured it out just yet.


While I can't agree with all your points I can at least appreciate the fact that you are not blinded by partisan bickering. It is irritating to me when everyone wants to blame one particular group or party and ignores the sins of the other group/party.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

PhilJohnson said:


> That is very true. Things have gotten more complicated, and there are whole new segments of the economy that didn't exist then. There is much hand wringing now about the debt, no doubt it is a problem but then unlike now the people realized that taxes needed to increase to help pay for it. Also there were huge infrastructure improvements that were undertaken such as the interstate system. I have a feeling if people had the attitude then as we do now there would have been no man on the moon, we'd all be driving on two lane highways, and wallowing in a huge mountain of debt.


We are literally WELL past the point any society in history ever paid this level of debt. i call that wallowing. They took higher taxes, deep austerity and 80 plus years to do it. We grew out of it last time, the era you mention because we grew greatly in number which wont happen now to that level and as you agree we have entirely new segments to our economy. We cant expect that to save us. We simply cannot rely on debt to fund day to day affairs. Seriously, study the IMF in depth, I think you will agree. 


> Your point would carry more punch if everyone was feeling the brunt of inflation. Slow steady inflation has not hurt the wealthy at all. In fact their wealth has increased even when adjusted to inflation above and beyond the middle class and working poor.


Yes I know. they are the ones doing it essentially. the federal reserve is a private organization beholden to no one but share holders. whom are making out like bandits. Our middle class erodes, Im not sure how this takes away from my point, it upholds it. 


> I used to think that the rug was going to be pulled out from under the dollar any day. But in light of everyone else's problems it seems to be a very faint possibility. The dollar is still the best currency in the world even with all our problems. We have a very strange phenomenon, wage stagflation even deflation coupled with commodity inflation. It's easy to see where the money from wages have went, up to the one percent. If this wasn't true than the wealthy would be loosing wealth as well. That has not happened.


Not at all. its being controlled is all. If it happened in a day it would be chaotic and those leading it wouldnt be able to assure they stay on top. the best horse in the glue factory is still in the glue factory. im not sure how your last point is entirely relevant to this part of the conversation. 



> Agreed.


:nanner:




> There needs to be certain cuts, there also needs to be a realization that some things do not function so hot solely under the purview of private companies but I won't mention those things because that is a debate for another day. I have talked to a lot of older people (60s-80 year olds) and it is pretty obvious that without modern social programs they would be destitute. Those people built the nation we enjoy today. I do not think it is too much to ask to take care of those who took care of us.


unfortunately imo the older generations will indeed be soon destitute. which is why I personally think its a bit to late. Few would willingly cut them off, but not doing so as more boomers retire will indeed level us. Look at the numbers, they are immense. You think we have budget issues now? take it out 10-20 years, we cant come close to paying medicaid and medicare ALONE. so few would choose that, few families will take in their elders as most families used to. though these folks built the nation, they are about to play a large part in sucking the vitality right out of it. They have set themselves up to receive more then one generations wealth. It simply cannot last. 



> I have no problem with paying more for SS, Medicare/Medicaid to preserve it for myself, my hypothetical unborn children, and those who are truly disabled. However that fund should not be used for any other purpose other than to pay beneficiaries. No stupid accounting tricks using those funds to make it look like the budget is balanced or using it to fund tax cuts elsewhere.


you might be surprised, im not going to dig up the numbers, but people are only paying in a tiny fraction of what they cost. with a larger generation then mine anyway (dont know yours, im 31) set to be able to recieve multiples more then they ever paid or could pay if we increased it greatly ASAP. these programs simply wont be there for my generation, its mathematically impossible unless perhaps we invent a new energy system or something else that greatly turns the tides in our favor. Even then taxes for it would have to grow, and like the ww2 era wed need an influx of babies or immigrants id think. 


> I do have a problem with people receiving tax returns higher than what they paid out (EIC). Rewarding people in poverty for having more children needs to be stopped and it carries a whole host of economic and social issues as well. I do have a problem with investment income being treated differently than earned income. I do have a problem with subsidizing private businesses that are hugely profitable. I have a problem with no bid contracts. I could go on all day. There is a lot of fat that needs to be cut and should be cut.


I could list many others as well. Like our nation building and deconstructing. Im glad we have a strong military but weve used it wrong pretty much entirely since ww2. hugely expensive and completely unsustainable imo. We apparently are stuck in the karmic loop of rome or something. :teehee: they did all the same stuff for all intents and purposes. 


> We as a nation need to focus on how to get the private sector out of it's dysfunctional rut, it might mean higher taxes on some things and lower taxes on other things. More regulation for large players and scaling back regulations for the little guy. Increased globalization and mega-corporations have not been good for the middle class.


big part of that imo is ending these free trade agreements. tariffs used well can be good even though they come with their own issues. It can be our buffer though, unless we want to compete with slaves. I do not. a strong dollar that retains value is key as well, we need to take it back from the private enterprise thats helping run it into the ground, our debts are only part of its issues. 


> While I can't agree with all your points I can at least appreciate the fact that you are not blinded by partisan bickering. It is irritating to me when everyone wants to blame one particular group or party and ignores the sins of the other group/party.


I agree, I dont agree with you entirely either, but I appreciate the talk. Imo it isnt the dems or reps more at fault then anyone else. It isnt even powerful interests though they pushed our leaders into much of this if you dig into it..

I actually blame US. why? well because politicians being corrupt and trying to centralize power is a given. Private enterise buying leaders is a given where its possible. these have simply always been true. the founders of this nation though gave us the means if we hadnt squandered it that WE could have been the balance. we werent supposed to rely on the three branches of gov alone to balance their power, we are the final control valve. instead we fall for the same patterns of cultures before us, and vote ourselves the impossible, and vote in the lesser evil over and over and over. Now afer many many decades of this, the wheels are starting to fall off. It wont be pretty. 

we are a strong people despite the snack foods and reality TV, we are cut from those the world over willing to push the envelope and take risks. We will be fine in the end, I do fear though that there may be a generation or more that is very rough though. very rough. thats my take anyway..


----------



## Fair Light (Oct 13, 2010)

bignugly said:


> Do you read newspapers? It was just reported that millionaires and billionaires are hoarding 3 times as much money as they were 2 years ago. Your generous boss is NOT the norm and you know that.


Oh...so you get your information from the news media??? That explains it...especially when they talk statistics....everyone supposedly has statistics that can prove anything....I put very little creedance in the statistics reported by the media...I am sure there are stingy people in all walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds....but I will entertain your idea that the rich are hoading 3 times as much money as they were 2 years ago....IF that is accurate...so what?? it is their money to hoard....if I were rich, I would do the same thing....and come to think of it, most of us do exactly that...it's called "saving"....and yes, I am trying my absolute best to SAVE every penny I possibly can....I guess I am hoarding 3 times as much money as I was 2 years ago........and honestly? I hope you are doing it to....I guess saving is just wrong for the rich, is it just a good idea for us poor people???...


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

silverseeds said:


> We are literally WELL past the point any society in history ever paid this level of debt. i call that wallowing. They took higher taxes, deep austerity and 80 plus years to do it.


There was no deep austerity. We had some of the largest public works programs ever undertaken after WWII. I do realize that there were some very unique circumstances that contributed to our ability to pay down debt, but the government definitely did not tighten it's belt during the next couple decades following WWII. The Clinton years were probably as close an austerity budget as the USA has had since WWII.



silverseeds said:


> Yes I know. they are the ones doing it essentially. the federal reserve is a private organization beholden to no one but share holders. whom are making out like bandits. Our middle class erodes, Im not sure how this takes away from my point, it upholds it.


I guess I wasn't very clear. The money was and still is there to keep the middle class expanding in spite of inflation. But instead increases in productivity and profit have went almost exclusively to the very wealthy. There are more people than ever relying on social programs which is a two fold problem. Those people are a drain on the government and the government is not receiving any revenue from them. Had wealth been more evenly distributed I don't think the strain would be nearly as great on our government ran social programs. 



silverseeds said:


> im not sure how your last point is entirely relevant to this part of the conversation.


The second point was supposed to be on the end of the previous point about inflation. That point probably would have made more sense then. Gotta edit things better. 



silverseeds said:


> we are a strong people despite the snack foods and reality TV, we are cut from those the world over willing to push the envelope and take risks. We will be fine in the end, I do fear though that there may be a generation or more that is very rough though. very rough. thats my take anyway..


Here is my take on the whole debt/tax thing:

I used to think the dollar was going to crash, someone was going to swoop in with a new reserve currency and presto a failed nation state complete with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. But the more I thought about it, read about it, I came up with the conclusion it doesn't really matter how much debt we rack up. Money is nothing more than a man made system to facilitate commerce. It's a tool of which the value only matters in our mind. If everyone agreed not to worry about the debt it would cease to be an issue, if everyone worries about the debt it is an issue. Obviously the major players in the markets do not give a rip about how much debt the world's governments rack up. All they care about is off-loading of private debt and problems onto the the public, low interest rates, and more stimulus. 

There needs to be a shift in thinking about how money works and what it needs to have physically backing it up so it's worth something. People speak of going back to a gold standard and that will solve all our problems. I do not think money should be quantified in the narrow terms of precious metals. There are a million things that are worth as much as gold/silver if not more. Food, good water, energy, and even an educated and hard working people. There are examples of how this works out even now. The reason why people believe in the dollar world wide has nothing to do with how much debt we have, inflation, even what the return is for borrowing our government money. It is because the USA is full of real world physical capital, ranging from food to top scientific minds. It is because at least up until now we are a stable nation where one can run a business without being beaten by angry mobs or roughed up by war lords. Social programs provide that stability. Take that stability away and the USA looks a lot less like a sure bet for the rest of the world.

I think there needs to be a new monetary system. One that works for the benefit of all. It also needs to work within the confines of our finite world. One can spend into oblivion but there is only so much we can take from the planet before problems start showing up in the physical world. All the money in the world won't create things that cease to exist. Alas the last point is something that most people either are ignorant of or don't want to acknowledge. Instead of worrying about all the debt we are leaving our children which is really meaningless, we should be worrying about all the resources we are taking from our children. I guarantee our future generations will be a lot more peeved about contaminated soil/water, lack of arable land, and overcrowding than some dumb concept from a long dead generation about how money should work.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My choice of words was not good. Due to persistent inflation millionaires are not as elite as they once were. $250K in 1975 would be worth over $1 million today. It's not even that unusual for people to live in $1 million homes is some parts of the country. Millionaires have become commonplace.
> 
> The people I'm talking about are worth in the hundreds of millions -- and more. *You know, guys like Romney*.


And Soros, Buffet, Turner, Gates, Allen, etc... But you knew that! Just wanted to bring up Romney! Your too predictable!


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

PhilJohnson said:


> There was no deep austerity. We had some of the largest public works programs ever undertaken after WWII. I do realize that there were some very unique circumstances that contributed to our ability to pay down debt, but the government definitely did not tighten it's belt during the next couple decades following WWII. The Clinton years were probably as close an austerity budget as the USA has had since WWII.


You mis understood, I was referring to the only country to pay off such a debt as ours in regards to the austerity. We did indeed tighten our belts after that time though, you might want to re visit the numbers. 


> I guess I wasn't very clear. The money was and still is there to keep the middle class expanding in spite of inflation. But instead increases in productivity and profit have went almost exclusively to the very wealthy. There are more people than ever relying on social programs which is a two fold problem. Those people are a drain on the government and the government is not receiving any revenue from them. Had wealth been more evenly distributed I don't think the strain would be nearly as great on our government ran social programs.


I disagree, the money is worth a fraction of what it was, and without the government relying on debt for spending the middle class would already be much deeper in trouble. Look at future medicaid and medicare as the boomer retire, we could simply never cover it no matter how much you believe you should tax the wealthy or cut the military. 





> The second point was supposed to be on the end of the previous point about inflation. That point probably would have made more sense then. Gotta edit things better.


Still have no idea why you think its relevant. the dollar has been abused, doesnt matter who owns most of them. 
Here is my take on the whole debt/tax thing:


> I used to think the dollar was going to crash, someone was going to swoop in with a reserve currency and presto a failed nation state complete with wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread. But the more I thought about it, read about it, I came up with the conclusion it doesn't really matter how much debt we rack up. Money is nothing more than a man made system to facilitate commerce. It's a tool of which the value only matters in our mind. If everyone agreed not to worry about the debt it would cease to be an issue, if everyone worries about the debt it is an issue. Obviously the major players in the markets do not give a rip about how much debt the world's governments rack up. All they care about is off-loading of private debt and problems onto the the public, low interest rates, and more stimulus.


It now makes more sense why you said some of the things you did. Your dead wrong however. I have no idea what sources you read, but study the IMF sometime and how the wealthy who concentrated their power and subverted these nations because of it. Like greece we will one day be on the chopping block as well. Putting your head in the sand doesnt work. and if everyone decides debt is meaningless it is no longer a store of value, and a new money will arise (with this one falling) or there will be chaos to put it mildly. We cant simply pretend its ones with zeros after it, if it has no weight and meaning, then well it means nothing. No one will take in for services or commodities who is sane. The big players DO care how much debt is racked up. Especially when the system falls and they can buy it up for pennies on the dollar. Like in third world nations the same international players do this with over and over and over. 



> There needs to be a shift in thinking about how money works and what it needs to have physically backing it up so it's worth something. People speak of going back to a gold standard and that will solve all our problems. I do not think money should be quantified in the narrow terms of precious metals. There are a million things that are worth as much as gold/silver if not more. Food, good water, energy, and even an educated and hard working people.


very strange thing to say after saying debt has no meaning. 




> There are examples of how this works out even now. The reason why people believe in the dollar world wide has nothing to do with how much debt we have, inflation, even what the return is for borrowing our government money. It is because the USA is full of real world physical capital, ranging from food to top scientific minds. It is because at least up until now we are a stable nation where one can run a business without being beaten by angry mobs or roughed up by war lords. Social programs provide that stability. Take that stability away and the USA looks a lot less like a sure bet for the rest of the world.


Actually it was massive political posturing, coupled with aspects of what your saying. Except weve watered down much of that capitol, and most of it doesnt back the dollar in any way, nor could we back the dollars with anything, there are multiples more of them held over seas then we use here. In fact in addition to debt weve essentially expanded massively on the backs of those who invested in it thinking it was as good as gold because of the political posturing and some of the things you list. social program cease to offer stability when they are dramatically larger then we can sustainably fund, eve on the backs of our children. I have no idea what media you watch, but fewer by the day believe we have that stability because we live well beyond our means for decades. Like I said moves are literally already being made against the dollar as the reserve currency. Literally only a matter of time. Its gonna hurt bad. 



> I think there needs to be a new monetary system. One that works for the benefit of all. It also needs to work within the confines of our finite world. One can spend into oblivion but there is only so much we can take from the planet before problems start showing up in the physical world. All the money in the world won't create things that cease to exist. Alas the last point is something that most people either are ignorant of or don't want to acknowledge. Instead of worrying about all the debt we are leaving our children which is really meaningless, we should be worrying about all the resources we are taking from our children. I guarantee our future generations will be a lot more peeved about contaminated soil/water, lack of arable land, and overcrowding than some dumb concept from a long dead generation about how money should work.


Very strange to say after thinking we can literally do what you suggest here we cannot. (expand beyond our means) as well as having said debt doesnt matter. The debt SI a resource, the dollars ARe a resource. they are stores of value of the actual resources, or should be. Now they are just primises we arent far from being unable to keep. 

I agree the future our children will be more peeved about the dirty water and lands etc, Im not sure hows its relevant in any way. If we pretend debt doesnt matter our society will eventually fall to its knees like scores before it. In fact they will be much less able to deal with the soil and water issues. Probably being subsistence farmers, if china or whoever buys us out lets them own some land to do it on. Its always sad to see someone dismiss the fact we are robbing the future. We should live within our means its that simple. Perhaps it wont play out this way, but studying the IMF the wealthy fair just fine through these things, in fact the concentrate more wealth and power usually. Average folks who used to feel it was their right to rob their kids essentially, end up with much much less, a lower standard of life for their children then they would have had themselves living within their means, or spreading their reserve currency the world over enabling us to effectively spend more then w should without the full brunt of the inflation a nation not in that position was capable of. this abuse of the dollar will catch up to us. this isnt something to dismiss. this is something to face. Or not... perhaps we cant. we are near the end of an apparently predictable cycle of civilizations here after all.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

silverseeds said:


> You mis understood, I was referring to the only country to pay off such a debt as ours in regards to the austerity. We did indeed tighten our belts after that time though, you might want to re visit the numbers.


You don't fully understand the numbers. It's pretty easy to cut a budget when you no longer have to fight a global war. WWII ended, there was no need to keep spending money to fight the Axis so naturally spending dropped. It had nothing to do with austerity or trying to pay down war debt. 



silverseeds said:


> I disagree, the money is worth a fraction of what it was, and without the government relying on debt for spending the middle class would already be much deeper in trouble.


The money might be worth less but that doesn't change the fact that the wealthiest have been able to accumulate more wealth above and beyond the rate of inflation. Their increase in wealth has come at the cost of decreasing wealth for the middle class. The money is still there, in fact there is more of it than ever, it just isn't distributed very well. I suggest using the BLS inflation calculator to get a clearer view of inflation, wages, and wealth inequality.



silverseeds said:


> ILook at future medicaid and medicare as the boomer retire, we could simply never cover it no matter how much you believe you should tax the wealthy or cut the military.


What I find interesting is that in the years following WWII the top tax rate was upwards of 91 percent. The dept to GDP ratio was much higher then. The economy didn't blow up and the national debt went back down. While I don't think we should go back to those rates there is a lesson to be learned from that. I don't think all our budget woes can be solved by increased taxation but some it can be. And yes I do know certain things were different then which is why tax rates could not be as high now as they were then.



silverseeds said:


> It now makes more sense why you said some of the things you did. Your dead wrong however.


Am I really? How come Japan hasn't went down into a flaming mess complete with grinding poverty and third world living conditions? They have a debt to GDP ratio of 229 percent coupled with deflation. Granted their economy isn't great or even good but they do have a relatively low 4.7 percent unemployment rate. They also have interest rates that are close to zero percent. 



silverseeds said:


> I have no idea what sources you read, but study the IMF sometime and how the wealthy who concentrated their power and subverted these nations because of it. Like greece we will one day be on the chopping block as well. Putting your head in the sand doesnt work. and if everyone decides debt is meaningless it is no longer a store of value, and a new money will arise (with this one falling) or there will be chaos to put it mildly. We cant simply pretend its ones with zeros after it, if it has no weight and meaning, then well it means nothing. No one will take in for services or commodities who is sane. The big players DO care how much debt is racked up. Especially when the system falls and they can buy it up for pennies on the dollar. Like in third world nations the same international players do this with over and over and over.


The wealthy can buy assets with what, more fake made up money from a different fiat monetary system? What will make that one so much better than the last one? The wealthy can buy all the cheap paper/digital assets they want, doesn't mean they own it. There are only two ways to own something, in a peaceful world it is by mutual agreement, in a chaotic one it is by force. If the dollar collapsed I don't think the world will be very peaceful. Something tells me the elite are going to have a hard time assuming ownership of anything when there are millions, possibly more who are desperate, hungry, and angry. 



silverseeds said:


> very strange thing to say after saying debt has no meaning.


The dollar is stronger now than it was under the Bush administration yet our debt is higher. Moody's much feared (mostly by Americans) ratings cut did absolutely nothing to increase borrowing cost for the US government. No one cares that much about debt, if people/investors/countries did care they wouldn't be parking their money in T-bills with a near zero rate of return. Currency is a much more complicated concept than you give it credit for. 

Also I do not think we have outspent our natural capital here in the USA. When and if we do then debt will matter. That is why Greece is in trouble and the USA and Japan isn't. Greece has outspent what their country is worth to the rest of the world. They have outspent their natural capital, everyone knows it and thus borrowing cost have went up. 



silverseeds said:


> Very strange to say after thinking we can literally do what you suggest here we cannot. (expand beyond our means) as well as having said debt doesnt matter. The debt SI a resource, the dollars ARe a resource. they are stores of value of the actual resources, or should be. Now they are just primises we arent far from being unable to keep.


Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I talk about a new monetary system it will need to include a new economic system as well. One that does not rely on infinite growth to provide a decent standard of living. The only way this would be possible is for there to be a steady population decrease until it arrives at a sustainable level. Wealth from older generations would keep getting concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This would also create a deflationary spiral which could be good or bad depending on how the government deals with it. Once the population is at a sustainable level debt ceases to be an issue as long as the population is stable because it will no longer be possible to overspend physical capital.

However I do not think this will happen. Instead I predict things will crash and a new global currency will be touted as a cure-all. It's a bit easier to cook the books when everyone is on the same page :happy2: Since people are generally greedy we'll overspend our natural capital and be up a creek so to speak. 




silverseeds said:


> I agree the future our children will be more peeved about the dirty water and lands etc, Im not sure hows its relevant in any way.


It is quite relevant. Environmental protection cost money, and according to a lot of people that is money we don't have and it will ultimately be our kids paying the financial price for it. 



silverseeds said:


> We should live within our means its that simple.


Absolutely agree, we just disagree on what living within our means means. 



silverseeds said:


> Average folks who used to feel it was their right to rob their kids essentially, end up with much much less, a lower standard of life for their children then they would have had themselves living within their means, or spreading their reserve currency the world over enabling us to effectively spend more then w should without the full brunt of the inflation a nation not in that position was capable of. this abuse of the dollar will catch up to us. this isnt something to dismiss. this is something to face. Or not... perhaps we cant. we are near the end of an apparently predictable cycle of civilizations here after all.


The only robbing I see going on is people robbing natural resources to live like kings now. All the hand wringing about debt is meaningless without a decent planet to make it worth something.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

PhilJohnson said:


> You don't fully understand the numbers. It's pretty easy to cut a budget when you no longer have to fight a global war. WWII ended, there was no need to keep spending money to fight the Axis so naturally spending dropped. It had nothing to do with austerity or trying to pay down war debt.


For the second time the austerity I spoke of was another nation entirely. the only one to pay down debt of this level entirely. 



> The money might be worth less but that doesn't change the fact that the wealthiest have been able to accumulate more wealth above and beyond the rate of inflation. Their increase in wealth has come at the cost of decreasing wealth for the middle class. The money is still there, in fact there is more of it than ever, it just isn't distributed very well. I suggest using the BLS inflation calculator to get a clearer view of inflation, wages, and wealth inequality.


It isnt the increase of wealth for the wealthy the left you with less, it is the lowered value of what you do have. At the top levels they can retain wealth and built it in spite of the inflation. Id suggest you study the topic as well. I understand it myself. Those that own our money supply (a private entity) make out like bandits, while most of us end up hamsters on a wheel unable to keep up... usually. It is literally because of the inflation this paradigm can exist, in one where saving is key rather then debt based and steady inflation wealth is more evenly spread out. Pick up a history book. 




> What I find interesting is that in the years following WWII the top tax rate was upwards of 91 percent. The dept to GDP ratio was much higher then. The economy didn't blow up and the national debt went back down. While I don't think we should go back to those rates there is a lesson to be learned from that. I don't think all our budget woes can be solved by increased taxation but some it can be. And yes I do know certain things were different then which is why tax rates could not be as high now as they were then.


Even at that tax rate we could not sustain our current spending levels and more importantly future obligations to baby boomers. Look at the numbers. Apparently you will be surprised. Look at them from a non partisan source by the way. 



> Am I really? How come Japan hasn't went down into a flaming mess complete with grinding poverty and third world living conditions? They have a debt to GDP ratio of 229 percent coupled with deflation. Granted their economy isn't great or even good but they do have a relatively low 4.7 percent unemployment rate. They also have interest rates that are close to zero percent.


You might want to study japans current issues. They are running on fumes and frantically looking for an out. And yes, you really are. 



> The wealthy can buy assets with what, more fake made up money from a different fiat monetary system? What will make that one so much better than the last one? The wealthy can buy all the cheap paper/digital assets they want, doesn't mean they own it. There are only two ways to own something, in a peaceful world it is by mutual agreement, in a chaotic one it is by force. If the dollar collapsed I don't think the world will be very peaceful. Something tells me the elite are going to have a hard time assuming ownership of anything when there are millions, possibly more who are desperate, hungry, and angry.


yet historically, and recently through the IMF it has happened over and over... sometimes it does end as your saying, usually it doesnt. It remains true if you pretend debt doesnt matter, then money has no real value, and given enough time assets are either in very limited hands or chaos. We cant have an advanced society in any form without a store of wealth. We couldnt for instance trade goat meat and nuts and have computers. 




> The dollar is stronger now than it was under the Bush administration yet our debt is higher. Moody's much feared (mostly by Americans) ratings cut did absolutely nothing to increase borrowing cost for the US government. No one cares that much about debt, if people/investors/countries did care they wouldn't be parking their money in T-bills with a near zero rate of return. Currency is a much more complicated concept than you give it credit for.


Now your just getting silly. The dollar is ain a more precarious spot then it ever has been. Our interest rates on new debt havent gone up because the other rating agencies havent changed it yet, although they have literally already warned us. Of course people care about debt, we have several major sources moving on the dollar as we speak, they just cant change it to fast otherwise it pulls the rug out from many others as well. Your simply not studying this topic in any depth or from very biased sources. Im not sure how you think its more complicated then I give it credit for when your understanding isnt accounting for most of its aspects. 


> Also I do not think we have outspent our natural capital here in the USA. When and if we do then debt will matter. That is why Greece is in trouble and the USA and Japan isn't. Greece has outspent what their country is worth to the rest of the world. They have outspent their natural capital, everyone knows it and thus borrowing cost have went up.


So has the Us and japan, we are where greece was a decade or so ago when goldman sachs helped them fudge the books and let them go well beyond their means to ever have a chance to repay. We arent to far off, especially considering the moves being made on the dollar. Yo seriously think we should follow their footsteps? This is what you keep saying. baffling to say the least. the obligations for the baby boomers as the age will put us well over the line. 


> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. When I talk about a new monetary system it will need to include a new economic system as well. One that does not rely on infinite growth to provide a decent standard of living. The only way this would be possible is for there to be a steady population decrease until it arrives at a sustainable level. Wealth from older generations would keep getting concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This would also create a deflationary spiral which could be good or bad depending on how the government deals with it. Once the population is at a sustainable level debt ceases to be an issue as long as the population is stable because it will no longer be possible to overspend physical capital.


Why in the world do we need a population reduction to have a society that doesnt rely on growth? (actually we are dropping in population if you ignore illegal immigration) When a currency cant be inflated through fractional lending and retains value it acts as its own control valve. Which is literally why the banksters were able to convince people to let them control all this, and set up a paradigm of endless growth so THEY stay ahead of inflation, and YOU slowly have your wealth robbed, while your able to ignore it because of slave made goods and the debt based spending of the gov that makes up the difference. 


> However I do not think this will happen. Instead I predict things will crash and a new global currency will be touted as a cure-all. It's a bit easier to cook the books when everyone is on the same page :happy2: Since people are generally greedy we'll overspend our natural capital and be up a creek so to speak.


We literally already are. I am utterly confused why you think debt based economies are acceptable while talking down living beyond our means. Your contradicting yourself entirely. If we had sound money and no fractional banking we simply couldnt live beyond our natural capitol. This has been my point the entire time. 




> It is quite relevant. Environmental protection cost money, and according to a lot of people that is money we don't have and it will ultimately be our kids paying the financial price for it.


Not sure what environmental protection you speak of, so its hard to respnd, but it doesnt have to cost money. We can for instance manage resources in a sustainable way. Rather then using them all up now. recycle finite resources, re grow re genitive ones, and without doing so we have no future anyway. Strange how in one realm you realize this, and in another your view is that its okay to take a bite out of every dollar of the next generation. bizarre really. We spend I believe 40% more then we take in, with that to be multiplied as baby boomers retire, not even including that if we stay on this path our interest rates WILL rise as well, and the very real and literal moves on the dollars reserve currency role. both the IMF and the BRICS nations along with oil nations are literally already starting to talk about how they can work around the dollar without dragging the global economy with it. It simply wont last much longer, we are literally robbing our children, dismissing this is as short sighted as those who strip a forest and dont replant. 




> Absolutely agree, we just disagree on what living within our means means.


I guess so, for me living within our means is actually living within our means with ALL resources, including our store of wealth. I dont feel its our right to burden our children with our lifestyles literally leaving them less, at best. Im not sure there is a reality based definition of living within our means that includes the ability to spend more then we actually produce or make as you suggest. Im completely baffled how you could think there is.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

had to cut it into two posts dang it. LOL




> The only robbing I see going on is people robbing natural resources to live like kings now. All the hand wringing about debt is meaningless without a decent planet to make it worth something.


yep the planet is more important then our store of wealth. But how in the world is it not robbing? What if your parents left you 50,000-(your slice of the debt as a single citizen) 140,000 (your slice as a single taxpayer) in debt at birth as we ALL our doing to our kids now?? Your literally going to tell me they didnt rob you? they wanted good healthcare, and whatever else, and left this debt to you... You must carry this burden and accrued interest until your old enough to work, when not even including the MASSIVE additional debt that will already be added to your back before your old enough to work, and you think this is acceptable, and isnt one generation robbing the wealth of another??? Im not even sure how to respond. It isnt even debatable. the 140k you owe as a taxpayer doesnt goes up faster then you can pay it, you literally believe this is sustainable?? You definitely have made the case you do. Not only does it go up faster then you can pay, that isnt including that the interest rates will eventually rise, weve already been warned, and it doesnt include the still looming abut to retire boomers who are promised a LARGE chunk of your wealth, well over what they ever paid into said systems. And someone has you convinced this isnt robbing the next generation? whos taxes must cover this burden their whole lives ?? I seriously am at a loss for words. 

You might want to spend some time here... U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

I guess about all I can add is your in for a rude awakening, and you arent following these overall topics to well at all. You appear to be looking at a handful of opinion pieces rather then the full global monopoly game that is afoot.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Im done phil, It was an interesting and strange discussion. Take care. Maybe we can go another round some future thread.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

silverseeds said:


> Im done phil, It was an interesting and strange discussion. Take care. Maybe we can go another round some future thread.


Fair enough. Time will tell who is right, it'll be interesting to see how the dollar plays out.


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

bignugly said:


> your argument that you made money a different way doesn't justify not paying taxon that income. The only reason the rich donate to the charity is for the tax right off not out of the goodness of their hearts.


Perhaps true of some but not of all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

People are understandably disturbed by debt, but the outlook isn't as bleak as some make it out to be.

In the first place, debt is often resolved by "growing out" of debt. In other words, when conditions change the existing debt is dwarfed by other factors. In the case of national debt we judge the magnitude of debt by percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). During a recession the GDP is low, but in 5 years or so the recession will resolve and the GDP will soar. Existing debt today will dwarf compared to the GDP and cease to be an issue.

But even during the recession our debt/GDP ratio isn't that bad, at around 60%. European countries that are in trouble have debt at more like 100% to 150% of their GDP. That's twice our debt/GDP ratio. We have a long way to go before we see that kind of debt.

But conservatives are trying convince us that there's a debt emergency because Obama is on a spending binge. For anyone concerned about that, I suggest that you take a look at this fairly short Wall Street Journal article.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

What we hear about this issue is more political hot air that fact.

What we're not talking about is the condition of the American people during this terrible recession, and what we can do to help them. That's what the discussion should be about.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> But even during the recession our debt/GDP ratio isn't that bad, at around 60%. European countries that are in trouble have debt at more like 100% to 150% of their GDP. That's twice our debt/GDP ratio. We have a long way to go before we see that kind of debt.


Ours is currently at 104%, with much of our industrial base gone. This doesnt even include the fact weve literally been warned that on this path our credit rating will drop, which raises our interest rates. It doesnt include that as baby boomers retire our obligations will skyrocket. this fact by itself will end our current game, Im not sure how anyone could ignore it. It also doesnt include that very real moves are being made against the dollars role as the worlds reserve currency. 

Presuming our GDP will rise enough to grow out of this is simply silly. in all honesty. We are still exporting our economic base as well. 

Strange how a few years back it was the right the left and I on various forums would discuss this with, now the right cares and the left doesnt. Weird how things change. Heck it was part of obamas campaign platform!! 

anyone who thinks this is sustainable and ignores the issues I listed above is simply living in a fantasy that will in the end leave us much worse off. It isnt hot air. Study the IMF sometime in depth then try to tell me debt doesnt matter.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> Ours is currently at 104%, with much of our industrial base gone.


But as I pointed out, that figure is skewed because the recession has lowered the GDP. The GDP will go back up when the recession resolves.

The thing to keep in mind here is that there's not a lot of government can do about the recession. The timing of the resolution of the recession will have a lot more to do with how the European problems resolve than anything that happens here.

But our economy will come back, and the GDP will soar again. Government debt won't play a part in the recovery from the recession.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> But as I pointed out, that figure is skewed because the recession has lowered the GDP. The GDP will go back up when the recession resolves.
> 
> The thing to keep in mind here is that there's not a lot of government can do about the recession. The timing of the resolution of the recession will have a lot more to do with how the European problems resolve than anything that happens here.
> 
> But our economy will come back, and the GDP will soar again. Government debt won't play a part in the recovery from the recession.


Well you were completely wrong about our GDP to debt ratio by a WIDE margin, you are wrong here as well. Our GDP still goes up yearly, it just went up a bit slower a few years. If not when, it goes back to its older levels of growth we are talking a percent or two difference. It wont grow us out of our issues. 

Health care costs still grow faster then inflation, and by 2030 those collecting medicaid, medicare and SS will nearly double. 

Im totally baffled why the left during bush realized all this, but forgot it when obama won, and the right didnt care under bush but do now. It really makes me wonder about cognition actually, and how easily people are lead by opinion pieces.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> Im totally baffled why the left during bush realized all this, but forgot it when obama won, and the right didnt care under bush but do now. It really makes me wonder about cognition actually, and how easily people are lead by opinion pieces.


I'm wondering if republicans have learned anything from the recession. I have a legitimate concern that they not only didn't learn anything, but still don't understand what went wrong. Of course the concern is that they might do it again.

What have you learned about recession, economic bubbles, and what should be done about it?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I'm wondering if republicans have learned anything from the recession. I have a legitimate concern that they not only didn't learn anything, but still don't understand what went wrong. Of course the concern is that they might do it again.
> 
> What have you learned about recession, economic bubbles, and what should be done about it?


Your not implying Im a republican are you? I sure hope not. :teehee: (if you care Im a liberal libertarian) 

I answered this question in my discussion with phil. To end the economic bubbles we need to have sound money. We need to stop fractional reserve lending. We need to stop funding our lifestyles on the backs of the next generation. We need to makes moves to ring back our industrial base, and put real wealth back in the hands of our middle class. These things will hurt very bad. Which is why they are very unlikely to be done in a meaningful way. It will however end much worse when the pyramid schemes truly unravel. We may indeed find ways to kick the can down the road awhile longer, hard to say but it wll end and leave our kids a much worse future. every empire that has ever tried this failed, but while its going on was so sure they were different and justified it to themselves the whole time. very weird to watch it happen. 

Here is an excerpt from a very basic article on the unaccounted for obligations.....



> The International Monetary Fund recently computed a similar sized fiscal gap. The Fund reports that closing the U.S. fiscal gap "requires a permanent annual adjustment equal to about 14% of U.S. GDP." Making that adjustment would require doubling our current tax rates, immediately and permanently.


Baby Boomers: The Greediest Generation - Forbes.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> Your not implying Im a republican are you? I sure hope not. :teehee: (if you care Im a liberal libertarian)
> 
> I answered this question in my discussion with phil. To end the economic bubbles we need to have sound money.http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/11/gr...finance-kotlikoff.html?boxes=Homepagechannels


I thought I was a libertarian, although I do see a need to increased social programs during a recession as deep as the one we're in. I'm not usually a big fan of large social programs but I consider this to be a special circumstance.

The lesson that republicans should have taken away from the mortgage crisis is that the banks never should have been allowed to get as far out of hand as they did. Regulations should have been in place to prevent it. Greenspan's theory that we should just stand back and let 1,000 flowers bloom was a disaster, and it should never been allowed to happen.

Fiscal policy during the Bush years was irresponsibly inadequate, and we'll be paying the price for generations to come. We can't pay for wars with tax cuts, we can't allow financial institutions to police themselves, and we can't be in denial when things are going wrong. From where I sit it looks like republicans intend to continue to do all three.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

This isnt bushes fault alone, not even close. heck the path for the housing debacle started under clinton. Our current issues are decades in the making. Nor was the housing bubble the only recent catylist, so was glass stegall (might have spelled it wrong) BOTH of these things were started under clinton. 

In fact the free trade agreements several presidents fought for, for their buddies were major recent catylists for our issues as well, also mostly under clinton. 

bushes biggest issue in this regard was spending to much, while also cutting taxes. 

you seriously think the current recessions triggers were started in bushes era? He sure as heck didnt do a thing to help these issues, especially with his medicare debacle that was unfunded. I mean no offense but youve been wrong with fact based (not opinion based) data points in every post Ive responded to so far. 

Again no offense is meant, but, Ive read some of your posts in the politics section, you dont sound like any libertarian I know. 

Our underlying issues that will make correcting the ones above extremely difficult at best though have been decades in the making. one might cite 1913 when we handed the control of our money supply over to private enterprise as one of the major issues as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> This isnt bushes fault alone, not even close. heck the path for the housing debacle started under clinton. Our current issues are decades in the making. Nor was the housing bubble the only recent catylist, so was glass stegall (might have spelled it wrong) BOTH of these things were started under clinton.


It's not about blame. It's about learning from our mistakes and taking steps to make sure it never happens again. I believe that republicans take no responsibility at all for what went wrong, and fully intend to do exactly the same things that created the mortgage crisis in the first place. Knowing that, it's irresponsible for voters to put them back at the helm.

I don't want to hear that there's plenty of blame to go around. I want to hear that they're sorry they let it happen on their watch, but they will never let it happen again. I'm not hearing that. I'm hearing that we need to let bankers make their own rules while we enjoy more tax cuts.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I havent heard democrats say they are sorry for initiating the housing bubble, driving away jobs through freetrade, or glass stegall either. Both parties played into all those oh course, but clinton was at the helm. Im rather baffled why you feel the right is more culpable when the major catylists you talked about came under clintons era? 

By the way obamas plain seem to create various bubbles just as bush before him, and others before that, along with lowering the value of the dollar as a means of making exports more profitable. which frankly could eventually lead to more jobs, but lower the quality of living all around, and take another bite out of the middle class.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> I havent heard democrats say they are sorry for initiating the housing bubble, driving away jobs through freetrade, or glass stegall either. Both parties played into all those oh course, but clinton was at the helm. Im rather baffled why you feel the right is more culpable when the major catylists you talked about came under clintons era?


Even if some of the factors were in place during the Clinton years, how does that excuse a failure to regulate during the Bush years? I believe that minimal regulation by the Fed could have avoided the entire mess. A rule as simple as requiring banks to tell the truth about the contents of derivative securities might have been enough, and certainly limiting banks' exposure to downside risk would have helped.

But as I said, it's not about blame. It's about learning from mistakes and taking corrective action. Republicans not only haven't taken steps to prevent another bubble & crash, they have said outright that they intend to do the same things again if given the opportunity.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

THe question is who will they hit on after they sink the rich. They ae so addicted to tax dollars it will never be enough.
And their followers won't see it till it slams them in the face.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> THe question is who will they hit on after they sink the rich. They ae so addicted to tax dollars it will never be enough.
> And their followers won't see it till it slams them in the face.


Democrats don't want to "sink" the wealthy. They just want them to pay their fair share. I don't understand why a wealthy person should be allowed to earn money at a lower tax rate than me.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Even if some of the factors were in place during the Clinton years, how does that excuse a failure to regulate during the Bush years?


Who said it did? Nice way to dodge the question though. 







> But as I said, it's not about blame. It's about learning from mistakes and taking corrective action. Republicans not only haven't taken steps to prevent another bubble & crash, they have said outright that they intend to do the same things again if given the opportunity.


So it isnt about blame, but you keep trying to say the reps need to apologize? When obama and the dems are doing exactly what you say reps did? oook.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Democrats don't want to "sink" the wealthy. They just want them to pay their fair share. I don't understand why a wealthy person should be allowed to earn money at a lower tax rate than me.


How much do you invest in other companies that you risk to loose?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> How much do you invest in other companies that you risk to loose?


Having worked for myself, I've invested everything I owned into companies. I've won and I've lost.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Having worked for myself, I've invested everything I owned into companies. I've won and I've lost.


But you had it to invest and probably hired a few people along the way.
That's all we want to do is leave them with enough to hire people. 
What's the problem with that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> But you had it to invest and probably hired a few people along the way.
> That's all we want to do is leave them with enough to hire people.
> What's the problem with that?


I would entertain tax incentives for job creators. But that's already one of Obama's ideas.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

veggiecanner said:


> But you had it to invest and probably hired a few people along the way.
> That's all we want to do is leave them with enough to hire people.
> What's the problem with that?


Thats great, give them a tax credit for hiring an American full time in the USA. Dont just hand over the keys to the car and a credit card and get nothing in return. Just lowering tax rates means they can go pump up another bubble or create more jobs in China or whatever. If you want jobs in the USA, tie the tax breaks to actually creating full time jobs in the USA! These rich folk are supposed to be so creative and inventive, harness them into doing something useful in exchange for tax breaks.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

HermitJohn said:


> Thats great, give them a tax credit for hiring an American full time in the USA. Dont just hand over the keys to the car and a credit card and get nothing in return. Just lowering tax rates means they can go pump up another bubble or create more jobs in China or whatever. If you want jobs in the USA, tie the tax breaks to actually creating full time jobs in the USA! These rich folk are supposed to be so creative and inventive, harness them into doing something useful in exchange for tax breaks.


You make it sound like it's their fault.

Is it that they are taxed to low or are the middle class taxed to high?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> You make it sound like it's their fault.
> 
> Is it that they are taxed to low or are the middle class taxed to high?


Kind of reminds me of TARP. The said purpose was to loan banks money to encourage them to start lending to Americans consumers again. Great plan, but the money was handed over to the banks without a requirement to lend. Guess how that one worked out...


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Kind of reminds me of TARP. The said purpose was to loan banks money to encourage them to start lending to Americans consumers again. Great plan, but the money was handed over to the banks without a requirement to lend. Guess how that one worked out...


Same reason small businesses cann't hire or went out of business, now you want to punish them again with higher taxes?

You do realize the people who are suffering now had jobs from the so called rich up untill 2008.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> You do realize the people who are suffering now had jobs from the so called rich up untill 2008.


Sounds like your problem is with Bush. He was still president in 2008.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Sounds like your problem is with Bush. He was still president in 2008.


hmmm. I thought it wasnt about who is to blame? Its all you seem to be doing. You even tried to attribute to bush things others did, because he didnt reverse them. One side must apologize but not the other. your providing me lots of entertainment today, I appreciate it. 

Still baffled why in bushes era the left understood the danger of our current path in regards to spending, now they forget... and vice versa... exceptions of course, but it is very telling to me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Sounds like your problem is with Bush. He was still president in 2008.


No it's with the democratic congress. 2006-2010.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> hmmm. I thought it wasnt about who is to blame? Its all you seem to be doing. You even tried to attribute to bush things others did, because he didnt reverse them. One side must apologize but not the other. your providing me lots of entertainment today, I appreciate it.
> 
> Still baffled why in bushes era the left understood the danger of our current path in regards to spending, now they forget... and vice versa... exceptions of course, but it is very telling to me.





veggiecanner said:


> No it's with the democratic congress. 2006-2010.


It's always about replacing democrats with republicans, never about solving problems.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

veggiecanner said:


> THe question is who will they hit on after they sink the rich. They ae so addicted to tax dollars it will never be enough.
> And their followers won't see it till it slams them in the face.


LOL why do you suppose there is a need for so much debt? Since we keep lowering the taxrate on the wealty giving them a free ride the middle class has to make up the difference.

Its simply a matter of not giving the rich a free ride.

During the Eisenhower Admisistration , a time when most people look back to as reasonable taxes and growing wealth in this nation, the top rate was 90%.

Does that mean that that a person earning 1,000,000 paid 900,000 in taxes? Nope it ment that if he made another dollar he paid 90% of those.
So did that run the millionairs out of the country? nope it just encouraged them to invest


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's always about replacing democrats with republicans, never about solving problems.


the way you dance in a discussion is interesting to watch. 

Agree or not but, I explained the ways id solve the problem. In fact my contention is until we face several issues I brought up it cant be solved long term. 

as far as Im concerned romney and obama the goldman sachs candidates might as well be on the same ticket. I wouldnt dream of voting for either one. Looks like gary johnson will get my vote, as his ideals are in line with what I feel will lead us on a sustainable course.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's always about replacing democrats with republicans, never about solving problems.


and replacing republicans with democrats. funny.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

veggiecanner said:


> Same reason small businesses cann't hire or went out of business, now you want to punish them again with higher taxes?


Simple, you want the tax break so you can hire more workers, well great. Go hire more workers and you will pay less taxes. Simple. The Bush TEMPORARY tax cuts (thats why they had a sunset provision, they were TEMPORARY) failed and are ending, live with it.



veggiecanner said:


> You do realize the people who are suffering now had jobs from the so called rich up untill 2008.


I cant help that the previous Republican administration screwed up the economy with unfunded wars and artificially low interest rates to mask the fact that manufacturing was leaving the country at an accelerating pace. Admittedly they had help from both rich Republicans and rich Democrats in the Congress.... People for some reason trusted them. Never trust a billionaire. They didnt get that billion digging ditches with a short handled shovel, they had to work very hard, screwing a whole lot of people in the process. Its not easy screwing that many people. Very tiring work and takes a long time to do all the showering necessary to be presentable in public afterwards. 

The wealthy gotta think on how to actually improve the AMERICAN economy, not just do more money grabs and chase cheapest labor around the globe. Earn those multimillion dollar bonuses!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> They didnt strike UNTIL that $5 a day wage became substandard. Time passes, times change, INFLATION HAPPENS, things were different when they started striking. It didnt all happen in 6 month period as you insinuate. YEARS PASSED. Others got to paying as much or MORE THAN HENRY. Henry didnt want to up it further since he wasnt as dependent on his workers buying cars as he was when he implemented it. Others had to meet his wage standards in order to meet his wage standard so others could now buy his cars. Those FORD workers wanted to remain at top of the worker pay scale. Thus they striked.


Do you agree they should have? Or should the government pass 'wage tariff' laws to prevent workers from being able to harm companies by leaving their jobs?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

PhilJohnson said:


> Still a strawman argument. Affirmative action taxation hasn't happened and therefore not valid. We are not talking about what ifs.


The facts are that the government currently has laws in place which puts different people on different sets of scales when it comes to the laws. This is a fact.




PhilJohnson said:


> Another strawman argument. What is a fact is that the players in the financial markets almost derailed the world economy, got a bailout, and still received bonuses. Surely you don't agree with that.


Not a strawman its a way to show how stupid the idea of allowing the government to treat one group different than another. If you allow it to do it based on income why not allow it to do it based on any other factor?




PhilJohnson said:


> This is about taxation not light bulbs.


Its about freedom, government interference and equal treatment under the law.




PhilJohnson said:


> I ask what do you think would happen when the working poor suddenly has their disposable income go down to zero or less?


Once you get most of the government out of the job-employee supply and demand system things will EVENTUALLY balance out. 

Look at it this way. Say you have a business and to expand you need a 100' ditch dug. You put a help wanted ad out. In the add you set the amount you are willing to pay based on how badly you need the ditch dug and how much having that ditch is worth to you. Say the ditch is worth $500 to you. What happens if because of government interference you must pay $1,000 to get it dug? The odds are you aren't going to dig the ditch. Or if you have to have the ditch you are going to have to pass that extra cost along to the people who buy your product. 




PhilJohnson said:


> Originally the government during the Great Depression thought that all the relief should come from private charity. The no social program solution was tried already. It didn't work.


And the current system is working?




PhilJohnson said:


> If you are so concerned about fair taxation I suggest moving to Mexico. Because the government down there has implemented a lot of the stuff that you and others seem to think will work so wonderfully up here. Taxes are low, public workers are paid less, the social safety net is near non-existent, and low regulatory demands. Plus there are no Unions. Just be sure not to get shot and don't forget some extra bribe money for corrupt underpaid government workers.


Too old and stubborn to move. If so I'd most likely be in Costa Rica or Panama already. 

I guess its too much to expect to have the American government treat each citizen the same under the law. Seeing as how it doesn't bother you then you shouldn't be upset when someone making $10,000,000 pays just a few thousand dollars in taxes because he has friends in congress who put in special laws just for him and his buddies. After all you can take up the slack right?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Name a company that can provide its own highways & bridges, airports, seaports, postal service, water & sewer, education for its technical staff (elementary school and up), national defense, and even fire & police protection. Don't they owe us consideration for at least some of those things?


Name me a city, county, state or federal government which created the money necessary to provide those w/o taking it from an individual.

The people can get along much better w/o the government than the government can w/o the people.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CesumPec said:


> On earned income (labor from wages) yes. There should be a lower rate for investment income otherwise you will create a powerful incentive for people to not invest in businesses that create jobs.


I disagree. Once you start allowing exemptions and deductions you are going to quickly wind up with what we have now. Here's an example. In a lot of states food is exempt from part or all of the sales tax. Sounds OK, right? But what is food? Is a candy bar food? Soda? In one state unpopped popcorn was tax free but a bag of already popped popcorn was taxed.

Also. . .What would you say if a stranger walked up to you and told you he wanted to buy a new tractor therefore you have to give him $10 to help pay for it? If you allow him to not pay tax on the money he used to pay for the tractor that's just what is happening. You are paying part of the tax he would have paid. 




CesumPec said:


> If you risk your savings to buy a tractor to farm your land and make $1000 and I risk nothing to make the same amount, your risk is punished if we pay the same tax.


The reward for my risk of buying a tractor is the fact I can make more money.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> They stop giving us money, we stop importing their goods. US consumers are still a large part of the world market and if you close that market to them, they are done too!


In the past this was true but no more. The US maybe still be a large part of the world market but that part is growing smaller each day. More and more nations are moving up the economic ladder. Ever wonder why oil is so expensive when there's the same amount being produced as years ago? One reason is the world wide demand has risen. Look at the number of cars being sold today in India and China vs the number 20 years ago. 

You raise the import cost on most goods and those goods will just go to other markets. Say you make whatsits. You can sell your whatsits in your town for $1 each or you can load up your car and sell them in the next town where you can get $1.50. Being the good capitalist you load up your car and take off. One day the other town put in a toll bridge and a toll road now it cost you an extra $10/trip. Now you can make more money selling them locally for $1. That means that the people in the other town must either do without whatsits or pay more for those whatsits.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> Do you read newspapers? It was just reported that millionaires and billionaires are hoarding 3 times as much money as they were 2 years ago. Your generous boss is NOT the norm and you know that.


Do your newspapers say WHY they are holding their money? Its because they aren't willing to invest in when they think the reward, if any, for their risk is going to be confiscated by the government as taxes and/or fees. 

People with lots of money do not have a building full of gold coins they go swimming in like Scrooge McDuck. Money sitting around in a bank doesn't make them any money. Money only makes money when its invested. Even the extremely rich probably don't have as much cash 'laying around' as you think.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

PhilJohnson said:


> Taxes on the Federal level have been lowest they have in the past 50 years. Where are the jobs?


In nations where investors know they will be able to keep most or more of the return on their investments. Just because the current US tax rates are lower than past US tax rates doesn't mean they are anywhere near as low as the tax rates in other nations.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, and that's what needs to change. This country can't be top in the world without a robust middle class. That's what the fight should be about, not making the wealthy wealthier.


Until the government stop subsidizing poverty the middle class will continue to grow smaller and smaller.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Until the government stop subsidizing poverty the middle class will continue to grow smaller and smaller.


I don't see how, particularly if the wealthy pay their fair share.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Democrats don't want to "sink" the wealthy. They just want them to pay their fair share. I don't understand why a wealthy person should be allowed to earn money at a lower tax rate than me.


Do you think its fair for a poor "person should be allowed to earn money at a lower tax rate than" you?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't see how, particularly if the wealthy pay their fair share.


Simple:

1) Where is the largest percentage of earnings at? Its not the upper class and its sure not the lower class therefore more and more money has to be taken from the middle class.

2) The wealthy have the ability to move their earnings outside of the US.

3) If the poor paid ANYTHING in taxes we wouldn't have a problem. If I'm buying your lunch you probably aren't going to worry too much about the menu price. But if you have to chip in for the total cost you are going to check out the prices.

Also what percentage of their income is "fair". Tell me how its "fair" when one person is paying more than another.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Do you think its fair for a poor "person should be allowed to earn money at a lower tax rate than" you?


Yes, I do. People deserve to earn & keep enough for food and housing, and when they can't the government should give them a break.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Simple:
> 
> 1) Where is the largest percentage of earnings at? Its not the upper class and its sure not the lower class therefore more and more money has to be taken from the middle class.
> 
> ...


How much do we really spend on the poor? Compare it to the military budget.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, I do. People deserve to earn & keep enough for food and housing, and when they can't the government should give them a break.


Ok. Let me see if I have this correct. You think its fair to charge one person more than another. You think its fair for the government to write laws which treats one citizen differently than another. If that's correct what's your limiting factors? Is income the only thing the government should be able to use in discriminating one group of citizens or are there others?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Ok. Let me see if I have this correct. You think its fair to charge one person more than another. You think its fair for the government to write laws which treats one citizen differently than another. If that's correct what's your limiting factors? Is income the only thing the government should be able to use in discriminating one group of citizens or are there others?


The way it stands today Romney is paying around 13%. Why can't I get a 13% tax rate?


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't see how, particularly if the wealthy pay their fair share.


Who decides fair?

Seems to me the only fair is that flat tax some talk about. 15% maybe from EVERYONE. On any income, including that from the government. Make $10 pay $1.50 to the government. etc. No deductions.

But know what - something I've learned, and taught my children - and apparently some did not get this teaching ----- Life is not fair. Get over, and get on with life making the best of what you have and working to get more/succeed if you want more - not expect someone/anyone to do the work for you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How much do we really spend on the poor?


How do you define poor and what you consider government spending? How much of our spending on "the poor" is _off budget_?

The bigger question is how MUCH more are we spending now than we were?

The biggest question though is where does the constitution give congress the power to take money from one citizen and give it to another who is not providing a good or service to the government for that money?

Davy Crockett put it nicely:

_"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. "_

Davy Crockett vs. Welfare





Nevada said:


> Compare it to the military budget.


What do the poor do for the nation? Compare that to the military.


BTW, IIRC I saw a post where you call yourself a libertarian. I find it strange someone taking that label supports taking money from one individual to give to another.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Kind of reminds me of TARP. The said purpose was to loan banks money to encourage them to start lending to Americans consumers again. Great plan, but the money was handed over to the banks without a requirement to lend. Guess how that one worked out...


The way TARP went was the way it was suppose to go. There was no intent to help any US citizen but to prevent banks worldwide from closing. It was ANOTHER case of all politicians lying and cheating the American people.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

watcher said:


> Until the government stop subsidizing poverty the middle class will continue to grow smaller and smaller.


Not only do they have to stop subsidizing the poor but also the rich. Give the rich a tax break if they invest in American industry and jobs. If they want to invest in foreign countries and their companies, let those foreign countries give them a tax break. American middle class is one of the largest consumer groups in the world and if you level the playing field as far as cost, most would buy American goods. For years Japan imposed a heavy import tax on ALL manufactured products entering their country to protect their economy so why wouldn't work here? The only reason those import tariffs are not imposed is because lobbying groups are paying off politicians so it won't happen.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

AngieM2 said:


> Who decides fair?
> 
> Seems to me the only fair is that flat tax some talk about. 15% maybe from EVERYONE. On any income, including that from the government. Make $10 pay $1.50 to the government. etc. No deductions.
> 
> But know what - something I've learned, and taught my children - and apparently some did not get this teaching ----- Life is not fair. Get over, and get on with life making the best of what you have and working to get more/succeed if you want more - not expect someone/anyone to do the work for you.


In my opinion 15% is much too high of an amount to give the government. Allowing excess tax has led to most of the problems we have in this country today. Americans should fire every single congressperson and keep doing it until the tax situation is under control.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Melissa - I started to say 10%, but just chose a number for illustration purposes. I'll go with a lower percentage and be happy.


----------



## bignugly (Jul 13, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The way it stands today Romney is paying around 13%. Why can't I get a 13% tax rate?


Nevada, I have been reading Watcher's responses pretty close and he always comes up with reasons to protect the wealthy no matter what is said. He doesn't seem to understand the US still has a large consumer market and could be used to control world markets but some reason he has no reason to want that. I never begrudged Ford, Dodge Bros or any other wealthy American their money because they kept Americans working knowing that is where their wealth came from. Today's wealthy don't care and because of that a lot of jobs have been lost not to mention American security.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I believe NAFTA has a lot to do with the job loss in America. And no tariffs for things coming from outside the US. Maybe if we changed those two things, there would be more US jobs.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

AngieM2 said:


> Who decides fair?
> 
> Seems to me the only fair is that flat tax some talk about. 15% maybe from EVERYONE. On any income, including that from the government. Make $10 pay $1.50 to the government. etc. No deductions.
> 
> But know what - something I've learned, and taught my children - and apparently some did not get this teaching ----- Life is not fair. Get over, and get on with life making the best of what you have and working to get more/succeed if you want more - not expect someone/anyone to do the work for you.


I like that better then what we have, but Id actually prefer it as an income tax. In general Im not a huge fan of progressive taxing, but Ive heard to keep our tax base equal to today (and Id agree it should be lower) we would need a 23% sales tax. From there everyone rich or poor gets a check for the amount of money they would have paid in taxes up to the poverty line. 

this dramatically lowers the need for social programs. It also nearly eliminates the need for the IRS. which saves us a LOT. It also eliminates the need to scrutinize our incomes!! which to me is a big deal. Perhaps then I can just sell eggs to my neighbor and not have potential issues or go door to door raking leaves a sI did as a teen. This also brings black market cash into the tax collections for the country. All around I feel this answers the most problems and is more likely to happen then a flat tax which many would fight tooth and nail. 

your right on about nafta and the rest of those "free" trade agreements. we shouldnt be attempting to compete with slaves, and then subsidizing people to be poor! Its bad enough now we are subsidizing the entire middle class on the back of our kids with debts we simply cannot sustain. We cant continue several of the larger social programs even if we all agreed any more then we can continue the way we are fighting endless wars. It will end either out of wisdom, or idiocy. the dollars role as reserve currency is in jeopardy in a very real sense. Both the IMf and BRICS nations are already looking for ways around it without crashing the global economy. We better wake up. 

for those that think debt is no problem study the IMF in depth and how it was repeatedly used to subvert nation after nation!! Then look at greece and what its being forced into! We cant ALL follow icelands path without the dollars value disintegrating. If we take the value out of debt, the dollars role as a trade unit has no meaning. This would be dire for us. Wed recover sure, but wed leave our kids something much worse then we found. Our path is dangerous to put it mildly. time to get our heads out of the sand as a nation, put down the labels and head towards a path actually sustainable.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The way it stands today Romney is paying around 13%. Why can't I get a 13% tax rate?


You absolutely can. Anybody can. Capital gains rate is the same for everybody.

Get all your income from capital gains and you will pay the same 13%. Well, minus some because I am going to assume your income is smaller and everybody gets a big deduction for everyone in their family just for breathing. So you won't get taxed on the first (what is it now?) $6500 for each person in your family.

The majority of people paying that 13% tax are retirees and people keeping money in retirement accounts and pension funds for ordinary workers. Most of those retirement funds are in the stock market and gains there are capital gains and taxed at that 13%

Besides, Romney paid $3 million in federal taxes, and nobody is counting his state income tax, property tax, road use tax, sales tax, gasoline tax. My opinion is that $3 million is enough to pay in taxes.

it's not like you are going to get any of it if he pays more taxes, so I don't understand why you care, anyway.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

oregon woodsmok said:


> it's not like you are going to get any of it if he pays more taxes, so I don't understand why you care, anyway.


I suppose it's for the same reason you care how much welfare is passed out. Whether it be expenditures for welfare or low taxes for the wealthy, the rest of us are going to end up paying for it sooner or later.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Just think how much we could have saved in taxes if we would have closed all of our military bases around the would in the 50's and not played the take over the world thing for the last 60 years, leave them alone/ they leave us alone... get out of the oil countries, if jelly bean Ronny would not have cancelled the renewable energy programs of the times we could be way ahead now maybe could get by on our oil, but no he tripled our debt and etc etc
Have a nice day


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

haley1 said:


> Just think how much we could have saved in taxes if we would have closed all of our military bases around the would in the 50's and not played the take over the world thing for the last 60 years, leave them alone/ they leave us alone... get out of the oil countries, if jelly bean Ronny would not have cancelled the renewable energy programs of the times we could be way ahead now maybe could get by on our oil, but no he tripled our debt and etc etc
> Have a nice day


While I agree with you and wish that would have happened, our social programs (as more baby boomer retire) would still not be sustainable. We would however have a much longer time horizon to figure that out, while still robbing our kids unfortunately. Would have been nice to only have had to deal with one major issue at a time though.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

silverseeds said:


> While I agree with you and wish that would have happened, our social programs (as more baby boomer retire) would still not be sustainable. We would however have a much longer time horizon to figure that out, while still robbing our kids unfortunately. Would have been nice to only have had to deal with one major issue at a time though.


I realize most here seem rather determined to make social programs go away while handing out even more welfare to the likes of Exxon-Mobile.

But for what its worth, social security helps a lot of people. And I dont think those wanting it to die have given any thought to the huge problems of pushing elderly out on the street. Yea it would be nice if everybody was smart enough and lucky enough to set back a couple million dollars over their lifetime, but thats frankly living in fantasy land. From a young age children are taught to borrow, borrow, borrow and be perpetually in debt. If you are perpetually in debt, you arent going to have millions when you reach 65, just doesnt work that way. 

Social Security's only problem is a bit of indigestion from Baby Boomer generation bubble going through the pipeline. You increase retirement age a bit and SS taxes a bit and it works out. You also need to keep politicians from dipping their greedy grimy fingers into the SS pie and replacing the cash with IOUs. Yes Republicans do it too. Got to pay for all their unfunded wars to make world safe for global corporations, somehow.

Medicare is a good system and actually pretty cost effective. Its problem is that medical service provider inflation in general is skyrocketing while wages/salaries are stagnating and even dropping because the politicians subsidized the export of high pay blue collar jobs. The private health care system is in just as much trouble as the public one. The Republican wet dream of putting elderly on a voucher system where they have to buy private insurance, just means most elderly couldnt afford health care, simple as that. Giving somebody $50 to buy a $500 service doesnt work. It gets the govt off the hook but it doesnt get the job done. Vouchers just means only the wealthy elderly would have medical care. Vouchers are "Medicide", not a reasonable substitute for Medicare.

Eventually the private health system will collapse (sooner than later) and govt will have to take over. Doctors and other health care workers work for a salary instead of trying to both be doctors and maximum profit buisinessmen. Layers of unproductive middlemen can be eliminated. We will either have one payer insurance for everybody or NO insurance for anybody.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

HermitJohn said:


> I realize most here seem rather determined to make social programs go away while handing out even more welfare to the likes of Exxon-Mobile.


??? I never aid anything like that.



> But for what its worth, social security helps a lot of people.


Atleast SS mostly pays for itself. 


> Social Security's only problem is a bit of indigestion from Baby Boomer generation bubble going through the pipeline.


Actually to me the problems for SS are two major ones, we are lowering the value of the dollars it is paid in, and we already spent the cash long long ago. 


> Medicare is a good system and actually pretty cost effective.


It doesnt even come close to paying for itself. between this and medicare they will nearly double by 2030. Which doesnt include inflation. U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time This isnt cost effective to rob one generation to pay for another. Doesnt matter how efficiently the cash is spent. A yoke the next generation must carry its entire life. never mind the fact they wont be able to. 




> Its problem is that medical service provider inflation in general is skyrocketing while wages/salaries are stagnating and even dropping because the politicians subsidized the export of high pay blue collar jobs.


yes AND we gave the management of our dollar over to private enterprise. 


> The Republican wet dream of putting elderly on a voucher system where they have to buy private insurance, just means most elderly couldnt afford health care, simple as that.


I never even heard of this. If you believe we should have one generation able to spend the wealth of the next by force though, I have to disagree. Except in extreme cases such as war (and not these mindless ones we have now) this is a crime by my book. Its bad enough to force our peers to pay for things they might not want, many multiples worse to spend the wealth of the un born. 



> Eventually the private health system will collapse (sooner than later) and govt will have to take over.


 kinda sad we have to take our kids down with us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> It doesnt even come close to paying for itself. between this and medicare they will nearly double by 2030. Which doesnt include inflation. U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time This isnt cost effective to rob one generation to pay for another. Doesnt matter how efficiently the cash is spent. A yoke the next generation must carry its entire life. never mind the fact they wont be able to.


Yes, my generation paid a considerable amount to fund the previous generation's SS & Medicare, but we also put $2.6 trillion away in savings. Like the rest of my generation, I contributed to that my entire working life.

SS & Medicare will be going through a rough time during the next 20 years. But understand that it's not going to be that way forever. There are a lot of baby boomers but not so many of the following generations. My generation will eventually die-off, then SS & Medicare will become much more manageable.

This "crisis" is something we've known about for a long time. This isn't the first time we've dealth with it. Thirty years ago, during the early 1980s, we faced the revelation that my generation was paying in a lot more into FICA than was going out. Congress was taking that money and spending it on the general budget. There was also no accounting for those funds -- congress just took it and kept it. That money is gone forever. They never even told us how much they took.

We had a huge uprising over that. Ronald Reagan was facing the reality that he had a FICA revolt on his hands. Reagan knew that if he didn't deal with it somehow we wouldn't be funding FICA at all. To remedy that Ronald Reagan proposed a system that required congress to replace any funds borrowed from FICA with treasury notes to be repaid later. That's when Ronald Reagan made the "iron-clad commitment" to future generations. 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8"]Ronald Reagan on Social Security - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Since that time my generation has amassed $2.6 trillion in savings towards our retirement under Reagan's plan.

Nothing has changed since that time. Medicare is still a good plan, incorporating an annuity program into healthcare coverage. That's really the only way to deal with healthcare for seniors. The Ryan's voucher/private insurance plan is nothing more than traditional healthcare insurance, which is not appropriate for seniors.

Understand that Medicare has to pay huge medical expenses for the kinds of problems advanced-aged seniors develop. To fund those huge medical expenses we use money from Medicare's "annuity" fund. The annuity provides money paid-in by people who died younger to cover medical expenses of people who live to be much older. It's a form of insurance designed to protect us from the financial impact of growing very old. Ryan's plan doesn't provide an annuity. With Ryan's plan seniors simply buy private sector insurance at the prevailing risk rate. I don't see how that can work for seniors, unless we just let seniors die when they develop expensive problems.

As HermitJohn pointed out, Ryan's plan is designed to get the government off the hook for Medicare expenses, yet ignores the needs of seniors. If you somehow incorporate an annuity program into Ryan's plan then we can talk.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> SS & Medicare will be going through a rough time during the next 20 years. .


understatement of the year. Not including inflation or the fact several major players (more then half the world literally) are moving on the dollars role as reserve currency.... these expenditures are set to nearly double! again NOT including inflation. they will make up MORE then our entire budget by themselves! I know very well no one will vote these away, and we will leave our children a broken nation because of it. We cant fund these things forever, we are already borrowing 40% of what we spend, this will increase immensely over the next 20 years, we are already at 104% debt to GDP. 

The way this generation has used up resources and spent generations of wealth will forever be a black mark in our nations history. for generations to come people will look back and marvel at our arrogance and decadence and despise us. I hope you live to see it. Its a mathematical certainty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> Not only do they have to stop subsidizing the poor but also the rich. Give the rich a tax break if they invest in American industry and jobs. If they want to invest in foreign countries and their companies, let those foreign countries give them a tax break.


I'm confused? Giving tax breaks is subsidizing.




bignugly said:


> American middle class is one of the largest consumer groups in the world and if you level the playing field as far as cost, most would buy American goods. For years Japan imposed a heavy import tax on ALL manufactured products entering their country to protect their economy so why wouldn't work here? The only reason those import tariffs are not imposed is because lobbying groups are paying off politicians so it won't happen.


As I have pointed out many times, and you seem to have missed, is the world is a much different place then it was years ago. Years ago the US market was the THE biggest in the world, not so today. China, India, South Korea and many other nations have a very fast growing markets. You make it more expensive to sell products here companies will shift their marketing. 

Then there's the fact when you limit competition prices go up and quality goes down. Do you remember how well constructed cars were in the 70s? Remember when Harley was on the verge of going out of business? Back then the joke was you had to buy two Harleys so you'd always have one for parts.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

bignugly said:


> Nevada, I have been reading Watcher's responses pretty close and he always comes up with reasons to protect the wealthy no matter what is said. He doesn't seem to understand the US still has a large consumer market and could be used to control world markets but some reason he has no reason to want that. I never begrudged Ford, Dodge Bros or any other wealthy American their money because they kept Americans working knowing that is where their wealth came from. Today's wealthy don't care and because of that a lot of jobs have been lost not to mention American security.


I'm for protecting EVERYONE by making sure the government treats us all the same and staying out of all of our lives as much as possible.

American businesses are providing just what the American people want. The American people want the lowest price possible for 99% of their goods. Why is Wal Mart booming while Sears is on the verge of going out of business? Its because people are not willing to pay more for pieces of junk.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'm for protecting EVERYONE by making sure the government treats us all the same and staying out of all of our lives as much as possible.
> 
> American businesses are providing just what the American people want. The American people want the lowest price possible for 99% of their goods. Why is Wal Mart booming while Sears is on the verge of going out of business? Its because people are not willing to pay more for pieces of junk.


Everyone? I'm not seeing your concern for the elderly. They are the most vulnerable and helpless people in society. Infants have parents to provide for them, but seniors don't have that. If you take Medicare as we know it away from seniors the only alternative is to let seniors who develop expensive problems die for lack of care. I don't want to think that's the way my kids will have to retire.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> don't want to think that's the way my kids will have to retire.


you are leaving them little choice, forcing them to cover the current generations expenses well beyond what this generation could afford for itself. If we cant afford these things for ourselves, how will they cover that AND their own retirement? an influx of immigrants to account for our otherwise shrinking population working jobs that will have to compete with slaves more and more over time wont be able to do it either... 

It all sounds real nice, the math simply doesnt work though even if we all agreed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, my generation paid a considerable amount to fund the previous generation's SS & Medicare, but we also put $2.6 trillion away in savings. Like the rest of my generation, I contributed to that my entire working life.


And as I have said before, you got screwed. There were a lot of people who paid a considerable amount of money to Bernie Madoff expecting to receive nice pay outs in the future. A few of them made out but most of them got nothing but a hard lesson because Bernie took their money and gave some of it to the first investors and spent the rest. The same for SS. A few people made out but the rest are going to get the shaft because the government took their money and gave some of it to the early 'investors' and spent the rest.




Nevada said:


> SS & Medicare will be going through a rough time during the next 20 years. But understand that it's not going to be that way forever. There are a lot of baby boomers but not so many of the following generations. My generation will eventually die-off, then SS & Medicare will become much more manageable.


The problem is the boomers are living longer than the government planned on, IOW ya'll ain't dieing fast enough. No top of that because of government interference the amount of money it will be paying out on them is going to be WAY more than it expected.




Nevada said:


> This "crisis" is something we've known about for a long time. This isn't the first time we've dealth with it. Thirty years ago, during the early 1980s, we faced the revelation that my generation was paying in a lot more into FICA than was going out. Congress was taking that money and spending it on the general budget. There was also no accounting for those funds -- congress just took it and kept it. That money is gone forever. They never even told us how much they took.


Did they do this in secret or was it public knowledge? You know it was public knowledge and the people clearly agreed with it because they kept electing the same congress critters year after year after year. . .




Nevada said:


> We had a huge uprising over that. Ronald Reagan was facing the reality that he had a FICA revolt on his hands. Reagan knew that if he didn't deal with it somehow we wouldn't be funding FICA at all. To remedy that Ronald Reagan proposed a system that required congress to replace any funds borrowed from FICA with treasury notes to be repaid later. That's when Ronald Reagan made the "iron-clad commitment" to future generations.


*THUMP, shuffle* Now that I've got my laughing under control and am back in my chair. . . That's is SO FUNNY! Man you almost put me into a major asthma attack with that one. That's like saying you fix a problem by having an embezzler make a promise to write the company checks for any money he steals and the company will only cash in the future and only when it needs money.




Nevada said:


> Since that time my generation has amassed $2.6 trillion in savings towards our retirement under Reagan's plan.


And in that time how much has the government spent over what it has brought in?




Nevada said:


> Nothing has changed since that time. Medicare is still a good plan, incorporating an annuity program into healthcare coverage. That's really the only way to deal with healthcare for seniors. The Ryan's voucher/private insurance plan is nothing more than traditional healthcare insurance, which is not appropriate for seniors.


But there is a major problem. In a private annuity program the company looks at the numbers and sets its prices on them and adjust as things change. The government doesn't because if you try to change a government program to make people pay more, get less or wait longer before qualifying you don't get re-elected. You know as well as I do if you look at the numbers there is NO WAY the current system can continue. Even if the government had put all the cash it took in rather than spending it there would not be enough cash in the "lock box" to pay what has been promised.




Nevada said:


> Understand that Medicare has to pay huge medical expenses for the kinds of problems advanced-aged seniors develop. To fund those huge medical expenses we use money from Medicare's "annuity" fund. The annuity provides money paid-in by people who died younger to cover medical expenses of people who live to be much older. It's a form of insurance designed to protect us from the financial impact of growing very old. Ryan's plan doesn't provide an annuity. With Ryan's plan seniors simply buy private sector insurance at the prevailing risk rate. I don't see how that can work for seniors, unless we just let seniors die when they develop expensive problems.


You have hit on the problem I pointed out. Ya'll ain't dieing fast enough. The government plan on the majority of you dieing JUST before you were eligible to get any money. That way you paid in the max amount and got nothing out. But because you aren't doing that the system is failing. Therefore the problem is clearly the senior's fault. If they would just drop dead at 60 like they were supposed to everything would be fine.




Nevada said:


> As HermitJohn pointed out, Ryan's plan is designed to get the government off the hook for Medicare expenses, yet ignores the needs of seniors. If you somehow incorporate an annuity program into Ryan's plan then we can talk.


Its not the government's job to take care of "the needs of seniors" nor any other citizen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> you are leaving them little choice, forcing them to cover the current generations expenses well beyond what this generation could afford for itself. If we cant afford these things for ourselves, how will they cover that AND their own retirement? an influx of immigrants to account for our otherwise shrinking population working jobs that will have to compete with slaves more and more over time wont be able to do it either...
> 
> It all sounds real nice, the math simply doesnt work though even if we all agreed.


The republican argument for privatizing SS & Medicare has always depended on the American people not understanding how annuities work. You can't explain it to people either. When you try their eyes roll back into their heads. It's a frustrating problem.

Foxworthy used to deliver a joke that went, "Some people invest in retirement annuities. ******** have the lottery!" That's about the extent of the average American's understanding of annuities.

But in all seriousness, annuities aren't that difficult to understand. You contribute to a fund during your working years, then draw an income for as long as you live. They determine payments so that you will break even at the normal life expectancy (around 78 or 79). If you die younger, you get less back than you paid in. If you live to be older, then you will get more than you paid in. Payments can normally be adjusted for inflation, since the fund is invested in interest bearing accounts.

People who don't understand annuities are easily convinced that SS & Medicare are a Ponzi schemes, but they are not. Ponzi schemes are illegal, but annuities are legal and offered by nearly all life insurance companies.

The political challenge to providing support programs for seniors is in educating the American people about how annuities work. The ultimate answer to funding FICA is not to get rid of the system, it's to adjust FICA contributions to match SS & Medicare benefits.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

I have no idea why there was a topic change to annuities. I understand them as well. I also understand basic math. You can spend more then a generations wealth, every generation with interest on top of it and expect it to stand for long. 

SS, would have been ok, had the cash not been spent, and they still tracked with life expectancies as originally was set up. People simply never paid into medicare and medicaid more then a tiny fraction that most of them will be collecting. this is much more like a ponzi scheme then an annuity.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> You have hit on the problem I pointed out. Ya'll ain't dieing fast enough. The government plan on the majority of you dieing JUST before you were eligible to get any money. That way you paid in the max amount and got nothing out. But because you aren't doing that the system is failing. Therefore the problem is clearly the senior's fault. If they would just drop dead at 60 like they were supposed to everything would be fine.


The answer is not to let seniors die, the answer is to adjust system benefits to match life expectancy. That's being done all the time.



watcher said:


> Its not the government's job to take care of "the needs of seniors" nor any other citizen.


I've heard republicans say this before. After Katrina republican pundits claimed that it wasn't the government's job to take care of disaster victims. But the thing is that they setup FEMA and collected funds to operate the program. Of course it's FEMA's job to help disaster victims, in fact that's exactly what they're paid to do.

The same is true for SS & Medicare. They collect FICA funds, then distribute benefits to seniors. That's what they're paid to do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Everyone? I'm not seeing your concern for the elderly. They are the most vulnerable and helpless people in society. Infants have parents to provide for them, but seniors don't have that. If you take Medicare as we know it away from seniors the only alternative is to let seniors who develop expensive problems die for lack of care. I don't want to think that's the way my kids will have to retire.


Different POV. You think its the government's job to "provide for" people and I think its up to the individual to provide for himself. One way is freedom the other is slavery. You figure out which is which.

If you really wanted to have the government "help" seniors you'd have it require them to invest the 12.5%, or whatever FICA is now, of their income in a broad based way from the time they were 18 until they reached 65. That way when it was time to retire they'd have more than enough money to live on for the rest of their lives. Not just the penitence the government gives them via SS. Plus any money left over when they died would go to where they wanted not into the pocket of some congress critter.


----------



## Oat Bucket Farm (Jul 28, 2006)

It's funny, I see a lot of stuff on here bemoaning how horrible it is that tax payer money goes to foodstamps, or medicare, or medicaid. How no one should be forced to help another. 

But at the same time, those same people seem perfectly fine with housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care and dental care for criminals. We have a huge prison population sucking money out of the system.

Pretty sad when it is okay to do all of this for criminals. But that elderly woman down the street, oh heck no! Kick her to the curb if she can't support herself. Or that family with two children who lost their good jobs and can now only find drive thru jobs and need help with food and medical expenses? Let them starve if they can't afford food. Let them die of disease if they can't afford the testing and treatment. 

Get rid of SS, get rid of all social safety nets. But when was the last time anyone ever uttered a word about the the large population of prisoners (some of them serving multiple life terms) that get medical care when they need it, their teeth fixed when they need it, an education if the want it, three meals a day, their electric and water bills paid. Maybe they aren't free to live life as they like, but we are still supporting them while they do nothing, put nothing at all back into society and in fact were a problem for society, which is why they ended up there to begin with.

But that's okay. If granny needs her meds and a place to live, she can rob a bank. Either she will get away and have the money she needs, or she will get caught and have her needs taken care of.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> I have no idea why there was a topic change to annuities. I understand them as well.


Then you understand that SS & Medicare are both annuities, while retirement savings accounts and private healthcare insurance are not. You also understand what seniors would be giving up by changing from SS & Medicare.

Why don't you explain what would happen to seniors when their retirement savings accounts run out? Have you considered private healthcare insurance premiums for people in their 90s? Let's talk about the realities of privatized retirement.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The republican argument for privatizing SS & Medicare has always depended on the American people not understanding how annuities work. You can't explain it to people either. When you try their eyes roll back into their heads. It's a frustrating problem.


Annuities have nothing to do with SS. If there was a private business out there running an annuity the way the feds have ran SS it would have been bankrupt decades ago and its managers in jail.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If you really wanted to have the government "help" seniors you'd have it require them to invest the 12.5%, or whatever FICA is now, of their income in a broad based way from the time they were 18 until they reached 65. That way when it was time to retire they'd have more than enough money to live on for the rest of their lives. Not just the penitence the government gives them via SS. Plus any money left over when they died would go to where they wanted not into the pocket of some congress critter.


A private retirement account would work fine if everyone lived to be the average life expectancy, which would require about 20 years of retirement funding. But what about people who live into their 80s, 90s, or even their 100s? The fact is that 20 years of retirement money won't be enough for people who live another 30 or 40 years.

That's why they invented annuities like Social Security and Medicare. People who live to be 100 still get full benefits, and it's even indexed for inflation.

What becomes of 80 year-old people with depleted retirement savings accounts?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The answer is not to let seniors die, the answer is to adjust system benefits to match life expectancy. That's being done all the time.


Yeah right. When was the last time the monthly SS payout was reduced based on the fact people were living longer?




Nevada said:


> I've heard republicans say this before. After Katrina republican pundits claimed that it wasn't the government's job to take care of disaster victims. But the thing is that they setup FEMA and collected funds to operate the program. Of course it's FEMA's job to help disaster victims, in fact that's exactly what they're paid to do.


There's a major difference in a nature disaster and SS. Helping a community recover from something like that IS providing for the GENERAL welfare. Babying an individual is NOT.




Nevada said:


> The same is true for SS & Medicare. They collect FICA funds, then distribute benefits to seniors. That's what they're paid to do.


I don't remember seeing in the USC where the feds are given the power to do this. Where is it given the power to set up savings accounts for individuals?

Also I don't remember paying into my FEMA account which is supposed to pay out to me and ONLY ME when I qualify.

If you think its the government's job to "provide for" us then why don't we just work for the government and have it provide EVERYTHING for us? And maybe it would be nice enough to give us a small allowance to buy the few things it allows us to buy. You know things which there is no way we can hurt ourselves with. But no smokes, no booze, no fried foods and the like.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oat Bucket Farm said:


> It's funny, I see a lot of stuff on here bemoaning how horrible it is that tax payer money goes to foodstamps, or medicare, or medicaid. How no one should be forced to help another.
> 
> But at the same time, those same people seem perfectly fine with housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care and dental care for criminals. We have a huge prison population sucking money out of the system.
> 
> ...


Years ago criminals were required to pay for their up keep. But the courts have ruled this was cruel.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Annuities have nothing to do with SS.


Social Security is an annuity program, pure and simple.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Oat Bucket Farm said:


> It's funny, I see a lot of stuff on here bemoaning how horrible it is that tax payer money goes to foodstamps, or medicare, or medicaid. How no one should be forced to help another.
> 
> .


my posts are more geared to living within our means then whether or not i support social programs. If we have them, they should fund themselves in our generation not rely on the future. 


> But at the same time, those same people seem perfectly fine with housing, feeding, clothing, and providing medical care and dental care for criminals. We have a huge prison population sucking money out of the system.


Im rather opinionated on this as well actually. We are a police state, no doubt about it. I believe we are roughly 5% of the world but our "free" nation has roughly 20% of the prison population globally. insane. 


> But that's okay. If granny needs her meds and a place to live, she can rob a bank. Either she will get away and have the money she needs, or she will get caught and have her needs taken care of


Im not sure robbing her kids and grandkids albeit it legal is morally any better. We simply cant sustain this at these levels. We can pretend we can, few want to change it. It wont stand though, and that granny will have left much pain for her kids and grandkids to sort through. unfortunately most will only face this the hard way. It would be a MUCH different conversation, if we were simply forcing our peers to pay into a system that actually funded itself. that isnt the case at all though, not even close. I wish it was the case.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is not to let seniors die, the answer is to adjust system benefits to match life expectancy. That's being done all the time.
> ...


When congress changed the full SS retirement age to 67.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Then you understand that SS & Medicare are both annuities, while retirement savings accounts and private healthcare insurance are not. You also understand what seniors would be giving up by changing from SS & Medicare.
> 
> Why don't you explain what would happen to seniors when their retirement savings accounts run out? Have you considered private healthcare insurance premiums for people in their 90s? Let's talk about the realities of privatized retirement.


Never said it will be pretty. It will be much worse though when we are unable to pile any more debts onto the future generations..

By definition medicare and medicaid are NOT annuities by the way, nor do they function like them. With annuities you get back a set amount in line with what you paid in. Im aware of no insurance companies that allow me to pay in a tiny fraction of what I can expect to collect, and then force future costumers to pay considerably more to cover what I took. That is called a ponzi scheme.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> By definition medicare and medicaid are NOT annuities by the way, nor do they function like them. With annuities you get back a set amount in line with what you paid in. Im aware of no insurance companies that allow me to pay in a tiny fraction of what I can expect to collect, and then force future costumers to pay considerably more to cover what I took. That is called a ponzi scheme.


Medicaid is not an annuity, it's a form of relief, but Medicare is certainly an annuity. You pay for Medicare during your working years, then draw benefits after you retire. You draw benefits for as long as you live, and if you live to be very old funds paid-in by people who died younger help fund your healthcare.

I really don't see how Medicare isn't an annuity. It doesn't pay a set amount each month, but benefits are for life.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Medicaid is not an annuity, it's a form of relief, but Medicare is certainly an annuity. You pay for Medicare during your working years, then draw benefits after you retire. You draw benefits for as long as you live, and if you live to be very old funds paid-in by people who died younger help fund your healthcare.
> 
> I really don't see how Medicare isn't an annuity. It doesn't pay a set amount each month, but benefits are for life.


first it isnt an annuity by definition, but...
It doesnt function as an annuity because what you get isnt based on what you actually paid in. annuities are from insurance companies and as such MUST fund themselves. (or said companies would be out of business) If it functioned as an annuity wed have no problem at all!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> first it isnt an annuity by definition, but...
> It doesnt function as an annuity because what you get isnt based on what you actually paid in. annuities are from insurance companies and as such MUST fund themselves. (or said companies would be out of business) If it functioned as an annuity wed have no problem at all!!!


It's an annuity because to follows the definition of an annuity.


*anÂ·nuÂ·iÂ·ty/&#601;&#712;no&#862;oit&#275;/*

Noun:

A fixed sum of money paid to someone each year, typically for the rest of their life.
A form of insurance or investment entitling the investor to a series of annual sums.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

You could make that case if you ignore most of the definition and function I guess. oh well... It isnt a fixed amount anyway, medicaid and medicare are service based, and payments are based on services constantly going up in cost. I could go on, it doesnt fit at all, but I can see no real beenfit from doing so. anyone who knows what an annuity is already knows it isnt the same. 

by the way PLEASE find me an annuity that pays out like medicare and medicaid!! that would be great!! Id like to get in on the ground floor and start collecting before the company doing it fails to make up for the fact Im paying into these social programs its mathematically impossible I can ever collect from.

(id start such an "annuity" myself but I dont have the right friends, Id end up in prison )


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Come to a thread late and you get way behind. Due to the character limit this will tak at least 2 posts.




Melissa said:


> I am a flat-tax person myself. Everyone pays the same rate, no graduated tax rate, and it probably wouldn't be that high if everyone paid. There would be an exemption per person, none for filing status, no deductions, no credits (NO REFUNDABLE credits) and no itemized deductions at all. When the governement collects the money in April that is the amount they get for the next years budget, no borrowing, no deficit, can only spend what is brought in.


Based on 2009 tax data, the latest available, you just raised taxes on the 90% of taxpayers. The amount that the bottom 50% would pay on average would go up by 500%. But it's all good. You've cut taxes for the top 1% by 54%.

Reagrding a balanced budget, there's no good reason why the federal government needs to run one.




Melissa said:


> Well if I were in charge (just pretend!) the tax rate would be nowhere near 20%, more like 4-5%. That family making 40K- say it was a family of five, would each have a personal exemption of let's say $5000 per person. So they would only pay tax on $15K at that percentage. If every single tax payer did this and no one received refundable credits, I think the amount taken in by the government would be adequate. The catch is that is the only tax they would pay at the federal level. Social Security and Medicare would be voluntary and would have to be self-sufficient. The money would remain in its own fund with no loaning, borrowing or bailouts of any kind.The federal government would become very lean I imagine. We would find out just how much waste there really is. Living with no debt (even as a nation) can be very freeing...


Why do you want to raise these folks taxes? Under 2012 rates, a family of 5 earning 40K owes zero federal taxes. In fact even if the Bush tax cuts were fully repeled, they'd owe no taxes.



poppy said:


> That works fine until the credit cards are more than you can pay and they stop lending you money. Greece, Italy, and others can tell you what happens then.


The US is nothing like Greece or Italy. The US controls its own currency.



watcher said:


> So you have no problem with the government treating one citizen differently under the law than another? What if the government decides to tax people differently based on their skin color? Gender? Weight?


Everyone is treated the sme way under the tax code.



PhilJohnson said:


> Let's start by making those who make $110,100 and over pay the same percentage of their income on social security as those who make $11,000.


As far as Social Security is concerned, income over $110,100 does not exist. You don't pay taxes on it, and it does not effect what you get in retirement.




watcher said:


> No, what they do is stop loaning the US money. How long do you think the government could keep handing out all those checks if China stopped loaning us the money?


China's been reducing their US debt and we've had no trouble selling bonds.




lurnin2farm said:


> Taxes are supposed to be apportioned. Whats this mean? Let me state for the record that the IRS codes as they are written is completely constitutional, however as they are enforced is unconstitutional.
> 
> Oh and by the way, I have spent around 2000 hours studying this subject and I'm still not an expert but certainly understand more than 99%.
> 
> ...


It's ashame that in all your research you missed the 16th amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Ratified 2/3/1913


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> by the way PLEASE find me an annuity that pays out like medicare and medicaid!! that would be great!!


I'm not aware of any private insurance that works like Medicare. It's the uniqueness of the program that makes it so valuable to seniors.

The problem with traditional insurance for seniors is that the older people get the more health problems they are likely to acquire. That makes traditional insurance for the very elderly cost-prohibitive. When good insurance for someone in his 50s is $1000/month, imagine the monthly premium for someone in his 90s. Medicare provides a way around that.

With Medicare, most of the premiums are paid during our working lives when we can afford it. When we reach 65 we qualify for Medicare, then are covered for the rest of our lives. The extremely high cost of healthcare for the very old is offset by people who die before life expectancy (younger than 78 or so). Some die before 65 and receive nothing, while others might die in their late 60s or early 70s and only receive Medicare benefits for a few years. Those who survive into their 80s and 90s are still fully covered at an affordable cost, since funds paid by people who died younger are available to care for the very elderly.

Due to the built-in annuity feature of Medicare, it's perfectly suited for coverage of the elderly. Monthly premiums for traditional healthcare insurance for the elderly will be too expensive, so many will simply not be able to afford coverage.

Even though there are no monthly cash benefits paid, I still consider Medicare to be an annuity because it has several annuity-like features.



 Most of the premiums are paid during our working lives.
 We are not eligible for benefits until retirement age.
 Most premium payment requirements end when we retire.
 Once benefits begin we draw benefits for life.
 When we die, our Medicare benefits die with us.
 Benefits are indexed for inflation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> When congress changed the full SS retirement age to 67.


They cut the monthly amount each person would receive?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Why do you want to raise these folks taxes? Under 2012 rates, a family of 5 earning 40K owes zero federal taxes. In fact even if the Bush tax cuts were fully repeled, they'd owe no taxes.


When you aren't paying for the meal you don't care how much it cost. And you are much more likely to order the surf and turf than the BLT.

If I'm not paying for my medical care why in the world would I shop around to find a cheap treatment?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any private insurance that works like Medicare. It's the uniqueness of the program that makes it so valuable to seniors.


That's because if it did the operators would be in jail.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I'm not aware of any private insurance that works like Medicare. It's the uniqueness of the program that makes it so valuable to seniors.
> 
> .


interesting, so no private groups have annuities?? or wait, medicare isnt like an annuity? which is it?? 

Its valuable to seniors because they paid into it, a tiny fraction of what they will collect.



> Medicare provides a way around that.


yep by racking up massive debts for future generations, complete with growing amounts of interest. 


> With Medicare, most of the premiums are paid during our working lives when we can afford it.


opps sorry. The average person collects around 3 times what they paid in. So its actually their kids and grandkids that pay for it. Most of the premiums are apparently going to be paid after they are dead the way its going. 



> Due to the built-in annuity feature of Medicare, it's perfectly suited for coverage of the elderly. Monthly premiums for traditional healthcare insurance for the elderly will be too expensive, so many will simply not be able to afford coverage


They are to expensive because insurance companies must stay in the black to stay in business. government can simply rack up debt and make others pay for it later. that only lasts so long though unfortunately. Look at insurance companies, despite the flak they get, they only make a few percentage points on all the premiums they take in. a well run government system could be a bit more efficient no doubt, but not by some massive margin many seem to believe without having looked at the numbers.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> In nations where investors know they will be able to keep most or more of the return on their investments. Just because the current US tax rates are lower than past US tax rates doesn't mean they are anywhere near as low as the tax rates in other nations.


The US is a low tax country












watcher said:


> Simple:
> 
> 1) Where is the largest percentage of earnings at? Its not the upper class and its sure not the lower class therefore more and more money has to be taken from the middle class.
> 
> ...


1) The top 25% make 65% of the money. The top 1%, together, make 25% more the the bottom 50% combined. The money is at the top.

2) that's getting less easy every year.

3) this is utter nonsense. You said it yourself, they're _POOR_. You can't get blood from a stone. The bottom 50% make 13% of the money. Not much to get there. 



silverseeds said:


> At least SS mostly pays for itself.
> 
> Actually to me the problems for SS are two major ones, we are lowering the value of the dollars it is paid in, and we already spent the cash long long ago.


Social Security _entirely_ pays for itself. The rest of your comment is misinformed

When collecting, benefits increase with inflation, and when working benefits increase with wages which are higher than inflation. And the money is in the trust fund.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> They cut the monthly amount each person would receive?


Well, when they raise the retirement age from 65 to 67 it certainly cuts the monthly amount of those who are aged 65 to 67. LOL

I the average SS check is around $1230/month right now, so delaying benefits for two years represents a loss of about $30,000 per SS recipient. We see about 5 million people retire each year in this country. Therefore, raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 saves SS around $150 billion/year (5 million x $30,000).

That means that as a whole retirees lose about $150 billion/year in retirement benefits. I don't know of any other way to look at it.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

watcher said:


> When you aren't paying for the meal you don't care how much it cost. And you are much more likely to order the surf and turf than the BLT.
> 
> If I'm not paying for my medical care why in the world would I shop around to find a cheap treatment?


Are you going to suggest restaurants as well or are you trying to make some sort of point?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Deacon Mike said:


> When collecting, benefits increase with inflation, and when working benefits increase with wages which are higher than inflation. And the money is in the trust fund.


Nope not mis informed at all. Wages arent even coming close to tracking inflation, especially when you include food and fuel which official numbers do not. increases in SS payments arent tracking real inflation either. just ask someone who relies on it for clarification on that. The money has indeed been spent, Im not sure how anyone could believe otherwise. Are you telling me you believe there is a massive fund out there with this cash in it rather then a pile of IOUs? There are IOUs for something like 2-3 trillion dollars. I dont remember the number off the top of my head.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> interesting, so no private groups have annuities?? or wait, medicare isnt like an annuity? which is it??


Not to my knowledge. If you hear of a healthcare policy where you contribute during your working years to receive medical benefits for life after retirement I would be very interested in hearing about it.



silverseeds said:


> Its valuable to seniors because they paid into it, a tiny fraction of what they will collect.


That statement is very close to what Bush one said about SS when he was pushing for privatized retirement, when he said that you never get as much out of SS as you paid in. Despite the fact that it's wrong, more people than I'm comfortable with believed it.

The fact is that for both SS & Medicare, if you live beyond the average life expectancy (older than about 78) you will receive more benefits than you paid in. And if you live to be old enough, it's entirely possible to receive several times what you paid in.

For those who recall Alma, the elderly friend I cared for, there were members in this forum who suggested that she was unfairly drawing more than her share from Medicare, since she couldn't have paid in anywhere near what she was racking up in medical bills at age 86. While true, that's the nature of an annuity. She was taking advantage of benefits never used by people who died at younger ages.

But your statement is also hard hitting. This issue is in more trouble than it should be, since republicans are enjoying traction on this issue for a number of reasons.



*Younger voters (20s & 30s) don't care.* They aren't close enough to retirement age to care, and assume that something will come up to help them before they have to retire. At that age many think they will probably get run over by a bus some day anyway, so why worry about retirement? If their paychecks are a few bucks higher because of lower deductions, they don't really care what they're giving up.
*Older voters don't have a dog in the fight.* The issue is important to them, but their own benefits are secure. Some are concerned about their kids, but others just want their tax cuts. Seniors have no real reason to get motivated over this, and that's no accident. Republicans designed the Ryan budget that way deliberately.
*American's on the whole simply don't understand annuities.* Make a statement like "you will never get out of SS what you paid in" and (although false) you won't get much of an argument. That because most Americans aren't really sure enough about it to argue with you. A lot of them will actually remember what you said and accept it as fact, possibly even repeating it to others. The legend may become bigger than the truth.
*We're in a deep recession*, so most people figure we have bigger fish to fry than providing medical care for seniors. Sadly, and understandably, many Americans can see beyond their own pain. If killing Medicare will save them a few bucks now, that's fine with them.
*There are growing numbers who really and honestly don't care if other Americans live or die. *They want smaller government and don't care what it takes to get it. They don't hate the poor & elderly, but they care about other things more.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Not to my knowledge. If you hear of a healthcare policy where you contribute during your working years to receive medical benefits for life after retirement I would be very interested in hearing about it.


ok so now it isnt an annuity? I knew that of course... 


> That statement is very close to what Bush one said about SS when he was pushing for privatized retirement. Despite the fact that it's wrong, more people than I'm comfortable with believe it.


People believe it because its a simple fact. Heck bush added to medicare without even trying to find funding for it. 



> The fact is that for both SS & Medicare, if you live beyond the average life expectancy (older than about 78) you will receive more benefits than you paid in. If you live to be old enough, it's entirely possible to receive several times what you paid in.


on average EVERYONE receives more in medicare then they paid in, including when you average in people who die before they collect. 



> . While true, that's the nature of an annuity.


nope, if that was the nature of an annuity no private industry would be able to offer them. they arent in business for charity. You should read a bit more about annuities. 


> But your statement is also hard hitting. This issue is in more trouble than it should be, since republicans are enjoying traction on this issue for a number of reasons.


Im not a republican, Id REALLY appreciate you stop implying that. Imo they are as lost as democrats are. Two sides of the same failed coin. 



> *Younger voters (20s & 30s) don't care.* They aren't close enough to retirement age to care, and assume that something will come up to help them before they have to retire. At that age many think they will probably get run over by a bus some day anyway, so why worry about retirement?





Im 31, Im concerned about my retirement. with a dollar that is in deep trouble and an unsustainable spending policy for my entire nation, I hope I can atleast cover my taxes until I cant work my soil. at which point if I have nothing extra its very obvious the current social programs wont exist. By 2030 they will dwarf what we even take in in taxes. the dollars role as reserve currency would have long since faded. no hope they will exist in any form like they do presently. 



> [*]*Older voters don't have a dog in the fight.* The issue is important to them, but their own benefits are secure. Some are concerned about their kids, but others just want their tax cuts. Seniors have no real reason to get motivated over this.


Id keep quiet to if I had no other way to live. which is why it wont change until it fails. 



> [*]*American's on the whole simply don't understand annuities.* Make a statement like "you will never get out of SS what you paid in" and (although false) you won't get much argument. That because most Americans aren't really sure enough about it to argue with you. A lot of them will actually remember it and accept it as fact.


Very obvious people dont understand annuities when someone can claim medicare is one with a straight face. (I assume your face was straight I cant see it) by the way, I was mainly talking about medicare and medicaid... I assume the accepting as fact thing is why you keep repeating baseless points? such as medicare/medicaid funds itself? Otherwise you should do some reading. this is very basic and a simple fact. we arent terribly far off from having ALL taxes collected federally not being able to cover these programs alone, if they paid for themselves this wouldnt be remotely true 


> [*]*We're in a deep recession*, so most people figure we have bigger fish to fry than providing medical care for seniors. Sadly, and understandably, many Americans can see beyond their own pain. If killing Medicare will save them a few bucks now, that's fine with them.


Save a few bucks, or keep the entire countries economy and dollar from crashing... big difference. Its not about saving a few bucks. We set up a system that simply will fail and will leave us much worse off in the end. Few would choose to cut off seniors though, so its very unlikely to go away until it fails on its own. 


> [*]*There are growing numbers who really and honestly don't care if other Americans live or die. *They want smaller government and don't care what it takes to get it. They don't hate the poor & elderly, but they care about other things more.



This has nothing in the world to do with it. I want SUSTAINABLE government, which indeed does mean smaller. I want government to live within its means and not rob the future generations unless our nations very survival depends on it. 

You do realize I posted a link the other day showing the IMF telling us wed need to double taxes across the board permanently to even fund these programs right? that wont even pay down the debt, that is just to fund these two programs. (medicaid and medicare) We would still carry an interest burden forever at that level. I dont even believe they included inflation, I know they didnt include what we will face as the dollar looses its reserve currency role.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

silverseeds said:


> Wages arent even coming close to tracking inflation, especially when you include food and fuel which official numbers do not. increases in SS payments arent tracking real inflation either. just ask someone who relies on it for clarification on that. The money has indeed been spent, Im not sure how anyone could believe otherwise. Are you telling me you believe there is a massive fund out there with this cash in it rather then a pile of IOUs? There are IOUs for something like 2-3 trillion dollars. I dont remember the number off the top of my head.


Food and fuel are included in the CPI. The trust fund is about 2.6 or 2.7 trillion dollars. It's made up of US special treasury bonds.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Deacon Mike said:


> Food and fuel are included in the CPI. The trust fund is about 2.6 or 2.7 trillion dollars. It's made up of US special treasury bonds.


There were even years recently people on SS got NO cost of living increase. They base it on the CORE CPI, which excludes fuel and food. They also change up what foods they include for the regular CPI to keep those numbers low..

US special treasury bonds = IOU... the money was spent. Its a fact. the bonds are only good as long as we can come up with the funds, and because of the issues outlined above that is in question into the future...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> ok so now it isnt an annuity? I knew that of course...


Medicare is an annuity, it just doesn't pay a cash disbursement each month. Instead it pays healthcare benefits. If you are uncomfortable calling possible medical bill settlements that might be paid by medicare an annuity, think of it has having a huge healthcare insurance premium paid each month.

Say that medical coverage for an elderly woman in her 90s might cost $2000/month with private insurance, but Medicare provides that same coverage for a $100/month Part B premium. That means that Medicare is effectively providing a $1900/month annuity payment to her each month.

I don't know how to describe the insurance benefit that Medicare offers any way other than an annuity. It's certainly nothing like traditional healthcare insurance.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2012)

United States Consumer Price Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am pretty sure it says food and fuel are not included.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> US special treasury bonds = IOU... the money was spent. Its a fact. the bonds are only good as long as we can come up with the funds, and because of the issues outlined above that is in question into the future...


Our government has never, EVER failed to honor a treasury note of any kind. I think the nation's retirement fund is a pathetic place to start.

But I don't consider "the money was spent" to be much of an excuse. Say you took out a home improvement loan to help fund a new roof for your home. When the first payment is due you tell the banker, "I'm sorry but the money was spent." I'm sure he will accept that. 

I understand why you needed to borrow the money the past 10 years, since we had a war on terror and tax cuts to fund. But now it's time to pay it back. This is not a complicated issue.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> There were even years recently people on SS got NO cost of living increase. They base it on the CORE CPI, which excludes fuel and food.


Well yeah, it's not like retired people need food or fuel. :stars:


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't know how to describe the insurance benefit that Medicare offers any way other than an annuity.


Here is one. Generational robbery. 

I dont know exactly what year medicaid and medicare will cost more then our entire budget, but I know by 2030 not including inflation they will be nearly double their current amounts and higher then our entire income (taxes etc collected) s a nation. that doesnt even include SS and its IOUs. 

I never heard medicare described as an annuity since it functions nothing like one, so I just ran a search. besides you i have yet to find anyone describe it this way. i did find many who offered actual annuities to supplement medicare.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Well yeah, it's not like retired people need food or fuel. :stars:


Just so we are clear, you were agreeing with me that SS does not rise as fast as the cost of living right?? Based on the rest of the conversation, Im having trouble figuring out if you agreed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> nope, if that was the nature of an annuity no private industry would be able to offer them. they arent in business for charity. You should read a bit more about annuities.


Annuities are not charity, nor did I imply that they were. My friend lived until she was 86 so she kept drawing benefits. Even if she drew twice what she paid in, she deserved it.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Annuities are not charity, nor did I imply that they were. My friend lived until she was 86 so she kept drawing benefits. Even if she drew twice what she paid in, she deserved it.


I implied they were. that is putting it nice. I prefer to call it generational robbery. 


If not charity why cant they come close to funding themselves?? When you collectively hand out far more then was collectively taken in on such a program Im not sure how you could call it anything other then charity.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> I implied they were. that is putting it nice. I prefer to call it generational robbery.
> 
> 
> If not charity why cant they come close to funding themselves?? When you collectively hand out far more then was collectively taken in on such a program Im not sure how you could call it anything other then charity.


I admit that FICA could be administrated better, but the fundamental idea of Social Security is good. It should be administrated in a way that it completely pays for itself.

I was your age when the FICA think came to a head in the early 1980s, and I remember feeling like I would prefer to just walk away from Social Security if nothing was done. Believe me, it's worth saving and it's a big deal.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Here is one thought, get rid of SS and medicare and have the kids take care of their parents.... they cared for us as kids

Also, all of the trade agreements we have include a one year back out clause, with one year notice we can cancell them...... contact for rep or senator....... of corouse that won,'t do any good, they will be paid off to keep them

Smile, life still sucks


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

You keep trying to switch the talk to SS. I kept talking about mainly medicare and medicaid. SS i run semi decent, although they should raise the age closer to the life expectancy as it was when it started imo. medicaid and medicare are the elephants in the room. (in addition to our military spending of course but Im guessing we agree there)


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

haley1 said:


> Here is one thought, get rid of SS and medicare and have the kids take care of their parents.... they cared for us as kids
> 
> Also, all of the trade agreements we have include a one year back out clause, with one year notice we can cancell them...... contact for rep or senator....... of corouse that won,'t do any good, they will be paid off to keep them
> 
> Smile, life still sucks


Life is good for me, but I agree with the rest of what you say. 

the freetrade agreements are terrible! taking care of our own is sustainable...

Ive floated this idea on forums before and people HATED it... but perhaps instead of medicare and SS and medicaid we could move WILLING (please not I said willing) people to third world nations where the costs of these things could be a fraction of their costs here. If enough people did it, they might just become solvent. there are a good number of nice safe countries that could work for this, and our elderly could sip martinis on the beach somewhere... again I said willing people.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> You keep trying to switch the talk to SS. I kept talking about mainly medicare and medicaid.


There's a lot of room to raise the Medicare FICA contribution. Right now it's only 1.45%.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> If I'm not paying for my medical care why in the world would I shop around to find a cheap treatment?


Yep, you have minutes to get emergency treatment, you tell the ambulance operators to wait up a minute while you regain conciousness and make some phone calls to find the cheapest treatment. Really? Hey driver, how about doing a U turn and getting me to India in 15 minutes? They seem real cheap!

And maybe you think the poor should settle for Doctor Nick....










Oh wait Dr. Nick is a QUACK!!!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> instead of medicare and SS and medicaid we could move WILLING (please not I said willing) people to third world nations where the costs of these things could be a fraction of their costs here.


The concept is good, but relocating people is drastic. I suggest that people who are willing to agree to have high-cost medical procedures done overseas should be able to obtain healthcare insurance for a song. When they have a surgical procedure that can wait for travel, you put them in a plane to Thailand or India and get it done for a fraction of the cost. I can see it for hip replacements, various cancer surgeries, elective heart surgeries, back surgery, and lots more. Airfare would be dwarfed by savings in procedures.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

silverseeds said:


> Nope not mis informed at all. Wages arent even coming close to tracking inflation, especially when you include food and fuel which official numbers do not. increases in SS payments arent tracking real inflation either. just ask someone who relies on it for clarification on that. The money has indeed been spent, Im not sure how anyone could believe otherwise. Are you telling me you believe there is a massive fund out there with this cash in it rather then a pile of IOUs? There are IOUs for something like 2-3 trillion dollars. I dont remember the number off the top of my head.


Social Security Online - HISTORY: Budget Treatment of Social Security Trust Funds



> Consequently, over time the Social Security Trust Funds have included a mix of marketable and non-marketable Treasury securities. Over the years, the proportion has shifted heavily in favor of special obligation bonds as the main asset held by the Social Security Trust Funds. Prior to 1960, the Treasury's policy was to invest primarily in marketable securities, although this policy was not always followed. Since 1960, the policy has been to invest principally in special obligation bonds, unless the Managing Trustee of the funds (i.e., the Secretary of the Treasury) determines that investment in marketable securities would be "in the public interest." In fact, since 1980 no marketable securities have been added to the Trust Funds. (For a more detailed explanation see the Office of the Actuary's Actuarial Note #142.)


#142: Trust Fund Investment Policies and Practices



> Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.


I think this may be what you were referring to, and as it's from SS's own page it might even have some validity to those that are nay-sayers.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> There's a lot of room to raise the Medicare FICA contribution. Right now it's only 1.45%.


We would need to come up with 14% of our GDP YEARLY to cover the gap between what we take in now versus spend. Our current revenues as a nation are only 14.9% of GDP. 

So between spending cuts and tax increases where do you propose we come up with 14% of our gdp, reliably and immediately and permanently??? The longer we wait (and this was 2 years ago its already higher I just dont want to try to figure it out myself) the more it will be. this does NOT pay down our debt and forever wed have on average around 1600 per worker (142 million people) just covering our interest payments, which doesnt include the fact our interest rate could go up and inflation and the changing role of the dollar. 

Does this sound sustainable to you? Or you just want to gloss over it?? 

this article isnt great but it touches on what the IMF has said and links to the IMf itself. I linked a forbes article touching on this earlier in the thread. 

Economics: If the Fed's going to monetise debt, now's the time to do it


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> There's a lot of room to raise the Medicare FICA contribution. Right now it's only 1.45%.


You are only off by half! That tax rate is *2.9*%. True, only 1.45% gets deducted out of one's paycheck, BUT, lets not forget that the employers have to pay in the same amount along with what they withheld from you. The employees pay half and the employers pay half of this tax.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> We would need to come up with 14% of our GDP YEARLY to cover the gap between what we take in now versus spend. Our current revenues as a nation are only 14.9% of GDP.
> 
> So between spending cuts and tax increases where do you propose we come up with 14% of our gdp, reliably and immediately and permanently??? The longer we wait (and this was 2 years ago its already higher I just dont want to try to figure it out myself) the more it will be. this does NOT pay down our debt and forever wed have on average around 1600 per worker (142 million people) just covering our interest payments, which doesnt include the fact our interest rate could go up and inflation and the changing role of the dollar.
> 
> ...


I'm only suggesting that we raise the Medicare contribution by a few tenths of a percent. That would only increase contributions on a $1000 paycheck by a dollar or two. Not bad for retirement medical insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> You are only off by half! That tax rate is *2.9*%. True, only 1.45% gets deducted out of one's paycheck, BUT, lets not forget that the employers have to pay in the same amount along with what they withheld from you. The employees pay half and the employers pay half of this tax.


I agree, since employers could pay more if they didn't have to match FICA contributions. But 1.45% is what people see.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I'm only suggesting that we raise the Medicare contribution by a few tenths of a percent. That would only increase contributions on a $1000 paycheck by a dollar or two. Not bad for retirement medical insurance.


well that wont matter much, that might delay the inevitable by a year or so. 

So I guess it is gloss it over then. Ignore that we are on a completely unsustainable path. Ignore that this will level our economy and probably our dollar as well. We cant grow out of this, wed need deep cuts in spending and or deep cuts in obligations and steep rises in taxation, amounting to just under what our entire budget is for a year. this is massive. And you think we should raise taxes a few tenth of a percent? the wealthy cant carry this. The middle class cant carry this. Our children cant carry this. weve already been warned if we continue to fund our country with debt our credit rating will be lowered by all not some credit agencies which over time will raise interest rates greatly. 

and you gloss it over? then give us emotional reasoning about how sad it will be for grandma? We wrote a check we cant cash. 

I know very well not enough will be done

People are to divided for real solutions. cycle of civilizations, at the end they get to complex and eat themselves. this is close to the end. We have part of a generation left if we dont change our ways FAST. Its simple math. Most empires before us were equally arrogant and decadent. It never turns out well.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Are you going to suggest restaurants as well or are you trying to make some sort of point?


The point is the people not paying anything in taxes have no problem voting to spend more and more. After all they get all the benefits w/o having to pay a dime.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> So I guess it is gloss it over then. Ignore that we are on a completely unsustainable path. Ignore that this will level our economy and probably our dollar as well. We cant grow out of this, wed need deep cuts in spending and or deep cuts in obligations and steep rises in taxation, amounting to just under what our entire budget is for a year. this is massive. And you think we should raise taxes a few tenth of a percent? the wealthy cant carry this. The middle class cant carry this. Our children cant carry this. weve already been warned if we continue to fund our country with debt our credit rating will be lowered by all not some credit agencies which over time will raise interest rates greatly.


It really disturbs me that conservatives don't see the danger in spending cuts during a fragile economy. We've got to keep the money moving or we'll take another fall.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Deacon Mike said:


> Food and fuel are included in the CPI. The trust fund is about 2.6 or 2.7 trillion dollars. It's made up of US special treasury bonds.


IOW, its full of IOUs which are only good if someone is willing to loan the government for more IOUs. 

Some people put money in the casket at a wake, I forget the reason but go with it. At a wake a well off retaliative was bragging about how well off he was and he'd match the all the money that was in the casket just before it was closed. As the evening went on he became more and more loud about it. The rest of the people got together and decided to shut him up. They all agreed to put in every dollar they had on them. The bills started piling up in the casket but the braggart kept right on saying how he'd put in as much as all of the rest put together. The other guest started going out and hitting the ATM thinking the cost would be worth it to shut the big mouth up. When the funeral director announced it was time to close it up and head for the cemetery they gathered around and counted the money. As the tally got larger and larger they all watched the guy's face. He was smiling and didn't look a bit worried. At the end the total was HUGE, no one thought the guy had anywhere enough money to cover that amount and were just waiting to hear him admit it. Loud mouth walked over, took the wad of cash, put it in his pocket and promptly wrote a check for twice that amount and put it in the casket. 

The odds of the government paying off the IOUs in the SS "fund" is about as good as that loud mouth's check getting cashed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The odds of the government paying off the IOUs in the SS "fund" is about as good as that loud mouth's check getting cashed.


It won't get paid-off. We'll just grow out of it after the recession resolves.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It really disturbs me that conservatives don't see the danger in spending cuts during a fragile economy. We've got to keep the money moving or we'll take another fall.


It really disturbs me most humans have such short timeframes in their thinking. it also disturbs me anyone could gloss over the weight of these issues. NOT facing this will leave our entire nation to fall, let alone a itty bitty recession which will barely register compared to what we face. Our society wont be the same for generations. this is the legacy the current generation in power has left us. history will NOT look kindly on you. i truly hope you live long enough to see the scope of what will come from what was sown.

We cant print or spend our way out of this. We are unwise to try to keep the game going when we are not changing the underlying issues that got us here. Our economy cant lift us out of this. Its way to big of an issue. 

Also, Im not a conservative. Im a liberal libertarian as I told you. 

You arent understanding the gravity of these issues. You think the economy is fragile? The current economic issues are a drop in the bucket compared to what is coming... Most conservatives ultimately dont have a much more sustainable path in mind then the left leaning folks. there is a reason the IMF and the BRICS nations are looking for ways out of the dollar despite the pain it will cause them as well. 

Since reagan its unofficially been about keeping the money rolling, (spending has increased in predictable waves since this time) as we watered ourselves down to compete with slaves, and opened the borders to cheap goods. supplementing our lifestyle with debt and slave made goods so as to ignore much of what we truly face. We are nearing the end of our ability for this to work. It wont end well. 

i know very well most will not face this head on in time. instead like yourself most will ignore the dangers, and depth of them. Our arrogance will be our downfall. Lets just hope china doesnt decide to invade when we are on our knees to try to collect some land perhaps for debts owed, and solve on of their own issues of hundreds of millions of people they can barely feed.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It won't get paid-off. We'll just grow out of it after the recession resolves.


grow out of it?? Youve got to be kidding. You still not looking at the numbers are you... the recession gave a 1-2 percentage point hit to out GDP, we NEED to come up with 14% plus just to balance out current mess. Nope we wont grow out of it. not even possible unless we start taking over nations directly and stealing their resources, and forcing them to pay tribute as some nations of the past tried.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> It really disturbs me most humans have such short timeframes in their thinking. it also disturbs me anyone could gloss over the weight of these issues. NOT facing this will leave our entire nation to fall, let alone a itty bitty recession which will barely register compared to what we face. Our society wont be the same for generations. this is the legacy the current generation in power has left us. history will NOT look kindly on you. i truly hope you live long enough to see the scope of what will come from what was sown.
> 
> We cant print or spend our way out of this. We are unwise to try to keep the game going when we are not changing the underlying issues that got us here. Our economy cant lift us out of this. Its way to big of an issue.
> 
> ...


So we're at odds here. You say the bigger danger is spending, and I say the bigger danger is to stop spending. I really don't see how debt is going to hurt us in the short term, but I can easily see how a spending freeze will stop what little economy activity we've got now.

You know, I was right about the last fall the economy took. People thought my prediction of a depression was so funny that one poster here at HT used it in his signature line. I was quite alone on that back in 2006. If course nobody admits that now.

We're not safe from a serious economic fall. I'm hearing that you're willing to take that risk, but I'm not hearing about any accountability.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Our government has never, EVER failed to honor a treasury note of any kind. I think the nation's retirement fund is a pathetic place to start.
> 
> But I don't consider "the money was spent" to be much of an excuse. Say you took out a home improvement loan to help fund a new roof for your home. When the first payment is due you tell the banker, "I'm sorry but the money was spent." I'm sure he will accept that.
> 
> I understand why you needed to borrow the money the past 10 years, since we had a war on terror and tax cuts to fund. But now it's time to pay it back. This is not a complicated issue.


It seems to me I have read that on 27 JAN 86 NASA told the engineers who expressed concern that they had launched shuttles in cold weather before and have never had a major failure. On 29 JAN 86 that statement was no longer true.

The feds have never failed to honor a note because they have always been able to borrow money to cover them. Its like saying you have never missed paying credit card bill because you have always been able to borrow money from one card to pay the other.

What happens when the people lending the feds all that money realize the US already owes so much money there's no way it could even pay the interest on another loan much less pay off the principle?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> So we're at odds here. You say the bigger danger is spending, and I say the bigger danger is to stop spending. I really don't see how debt is going to hurt us in the short term, but I can easily see how a spending freeze will stop what little economy activity we've got now.
> 
> You know, I was right about the last fall the economy took. People thought my prediction of a depression was so funny that one poster here at HT used it in his signature line. I was quite alone on that back in 2006. If course nobody admits that now.
> 
> We're not safe from a serious economic fall. I'm hearing that you're willing to take that risk, but I'm not hearing about any accountability.


The only lack of accountability is not admitting the weight of our issues. By the way I knew what was coming in 2008 well before 2006. Most libertarians did actually. 

Dang straight we arent safe from a serious economic fall. Its a serious fall now though, or a catastrophic one later when we will have less options in how to deal with it. It always baffles me when I debate someone with views such as youve expressed and they try to pretend I dont think it will hurt to make the needed changes. i know very well it will as evidenced by my posts. Yet like clockwork they repeat the same things you did in this response I have quoted here, apparently based off of some opinion piece or another because it surely had nothing to do with what I wrote. 

If you understand what caused our recession presently you should know it wont go away in any meaningful way long term until the issues that caused it are corrected. It took us generation to dig this hole. it will take several to dig out most likely. Worse if we dont face it head on and rather wait for miracles.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The feds have never failed to honor a note because they have always been able to borrow money to cover them. Its like saying you have never missed paying credit card bill because you have always been able to borrow money from one card to pay the other.
> 
> What happens when the people lending the feds all that money realize the US already owes so much money there's no way it could even pay the interest on another loan much less pay off the principle?


That could happen. If the dollar starts to devalue investors won't buy our debt. That's exactly my concern. Keep the dollar strong by keeping the money moving. If the government stops spending that will be the beginning of the end.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That could happen. If the dollar starts to devalue investors won't buy our debt. That's exactly my concern. Keep the dollar strong by keeping the money moving. If the government stops spending that will be the beginning of the end.


Wait a second, did you just imply if the government keeps up spending this will keep the dollar strong?? Oh man. I take it you ignore the BRICS nations and the IMF entirely?? along with the push among oil rich nations to switch to gold? (which strangely we keep invading the ones on the verge of doing just that starting with iraq--there have been a few now with the war drums for iran getting louder as they move to taking gold over dollars. coincidence?? maybe)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> If you understand what caused our recession presently you should know it wont go away in any meaningful way long term until the issues that caused it are corrected. It took us generation to dig this hole. it will take several to dig out most likely. Worse if we dont face it head on and rather wait for miracles.


This will be a decade-long recession, which puts us about half way through it with probably 5 years to go.

But don't expect the risk factors that caused this mess to be corrected. Derivative securities are still unregulated, toxic assets are still on the banks' books, and the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger. Don't expect any of that to change.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I admit that FICA could be administrated better, but the fundamental idea of Social Security is good. It should be administrated in a way that it completely pays for itself.
> 
> I was your age when the FICA think came to a head in the early 1980s, and I remember feeling like I would prefer to just walk away from Social Security if nothing was done. Believe me, it's worth saving and it's a big deal.


SS, welfare and the rest of the government pay out programs are the drug America is addicted to. The people are addicted to being "provided for" which removes all that nasty personal responsibility. No need to worry about medical bills the government will "provide" for me, no need to worry about saving for retirement the government will "provide" for me, no need to worry about feeding myself the government will "provide" for me, no need to worry about having housing the government will "provide" for me, no need to worry about anything the government will "provide" for me. 

The pols are addicted to it because it allows them to have power over those being "provided for" and to buy their votes to stay in power. The more I give them the more dependent they become on me which gives me more power over them. The more power I have the more I can give to them.

But if you have ever dealt with an addict you know that the more he uses the more he needs. And in the end his need for the drug becomes the only reason for living which leads to his death.

The US is heading that way. The people want to be given more and more stuff and the pols want to give it to them. Neither give a flying rodents rectal opening about where the money is going to come from nor the damage being done to the health of the nation. All that matters is feeding the addiction.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That could happen. If the dollar starts to devalue investors won't buy our debt. That's exactly my concern. Keep the dollar strong by keeping the money moving. If the government stops spending that will be the beginning of the end.


In a way that makes semse, except the money that is being moved is being printed or digitized, which ever way you want to look at it.
Every time they print more it devalues what we do have.
And the less we have to buy and sell the less it is worth too. No industry and droughts will devalue our dollar even farther.

Nevada I wish you were rich then you could discontinue this converation and find some thing more usefull to do. Cause right now, you are sounding pretty silly.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> Wait a second, did you just imply if the government keeps up spending this will keep the dollar strong?? Oh man. I take it you ignore the BRICS nations and the IMF entirely?? along with the push among oil rich nations to switch to gold? (which strangely we keep invading the ones on the verge of doing just that starting with iraq--there have been a few now with the war drums for iran getting louder as they move to taking gold over dollars. coincidence?? maybe)


I believe that severely cutting government could slow the economy too abruptly.



Congress stops spending.
The economy stalls.
The knee-jerk reaction of congress will be to try to get the economy moving again with a stimulus or bailout of some sort.
The stimulus won't work, but will cause inflation.
Inflation will drive away government bond investors.
The government will have to print its own money, which will result in hyperinflation.
Nobody can afford anything and employers can't pay workers enough to eat, so massive layoffs result.

Recovery from that scenario would be very difficult and long-term. We have no USA history to fall back on. Look to Argentina to get an idea of where it would take us.

I believe that the biggest risk right now is to stop spending and send the economy down for a second time.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> This will be a decade-long recession, which puts us about half way through it with probably 5 years to go.
> 
> But don't expect the risk factors that caused this mess to be corrected. Derivative securities are still unregulated, toxic assets are still on the banks' books, and the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger. Don't expect any of that to change.


so you attribute a random length for the recession?? All while you claim to realize the underlying factors arent going away. interesting stance to say the least. 

by that time our credit rating will be downgraded, and more moves against the dollar will have happened. Weve literally already been warned. Its very odd so many ignore this. 

But even if you were correct, that hardly matters, at that point the 14% of GDP we need to come up with will be much greater. It will be even harder to face our issues. A 1-2% difference in overall GDP will be almost meaningless and will be dwarfed by what was added in that 5 year window. debt will be added with increasing frequency by this time, due to the baby boomers retiring alone. Let alone the economic issues almost a given from the new healthcare laws. 

As I said, cycle of civilizations. this generation will be despised by many to come.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

HermitJohn said:


> Yep, you have minutes to get emergency treatment, you tell the ambulance operators to wait up a minute while you regain conciousness and make some phone calls to find the cheapest treatment. Really? Hey driver, how about doing a U turn and getting me to India in 15 minutes? They seem real cheap!


Good try but in reality how much of the medical cost in the US is for true emergency treatment? I'm not talking about a criminal going to the ER because their kid has an ear ache and they know the hospital is going to be forced to treat it. I'm talking about call the ambulance because if he's not treated in an hour he'll be dead, emergency. I don't know but I'm willing to bet its a VERY small percentage. 

The vast majority of medical cost is normal/routine care. My father-in-law used up tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars of government paid medical bills and didn't see the inside of an ER until less than 4 hours before he died. The same thing for my former neighbor. Knee and hip replacements, heart surgeries, cancer treatments and more. I hate to think about how much the government spent on him. Then he was killed in a wreck when he was close to 80.

I'm willing to bet less than 2% of the people in the US can tell you how much their doctor charges for an office visit. Why? Because even those not getting 'free' care via the government never see the bill because they have insurance and don't really care because they don't think they pay that. All the pay is their co-pay, if even that.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I believe that severely cutting government could slow the economy too abruptly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well that would be a silly way to go about it. We need tariffs and cuts, and no stimulus, at best sacks of rice and beans so people dont starve. 

there would indeed be mass layoffs, until more industry moved back due to the tariffs. It would hurt bad...

what you describe though is like stepping into the middle of a lake, maybe even a deep one. rather then the ocean waiting to engulf us on this path. 

Lets pretend we can keep up spending for 5 years and face no other literally looming issues like I mentioned (the moves on the dollar, rising interest) and you were right, we leave the recession. We gain 1-2% to our GDP> So where will we get the other 12%? (which also IGNOREs that we will need MORE by then because of accumulated debts look how much worse the debt is ignoring all other issues in only 4 years not 5 U.S. National Debt Clock 2016 at Current Rates)

What then? Where do we get the other 12% without causing a worse recession then what we are trying to bypass now??? still ignoring it will be more then 12% by then, and ignoring the moves literally already forming against the dollar.... Your argument holds no weight at all. the issues wont go away, even if your assessment had merit and it really doesnt unless we get rid of the issues that caused it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

silverseeds said:


> so you attribute a random length for the recession?? All while you claim to realize the underlying factors arent going away. interesting stance to say the least.
> 
> by that time our credit rating will be downgraded, and more moves against the dollar will have happened. Weve literally already been warned. Its very odd so many ignore this.
> 
> ...


Truth is we have to get people off the dole. It might mean they will take lesser paying jobs. But the money the goverment is spending will be coming into circulation from the employers. We won't have to borrow so much that way.
It may make things a bit tougher for some, but the next few generations won't be taxed to death to repay it. People need to start acting like adults.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> so you attribute a random length for the recession?? All while you claim to realize the underlying factors arent going away. interesting stance to say the least.


I said that all the underlying factors were still in place.
_
"Derivative securities are still unregulated, toxic assets are still on the banks' books, and the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger. Don't expect any of that to change."_

I think you're just attacking my posts for sport.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It won't get paid-off. We'll just grow out of it after the recession resolves.


How so? How can you grow out of when you are going to have 2 people drawing for every 3 people working? How can you grow out of it when the government has to borrow, what is it now, 40% of its operating budget? How are you going to grow out of when the percentage of people getting their money from the government (in pay or having it given to them) is growing faster than the percentage of them earning it in the private sector?

When is this magic growing going to happen? Why didn't we grow out of it the last few times we 'resolved' a recession?

As long as the government keeps on spending the way it is we are heading for a crash which if you rolled this recession, the "great" depression and what Greece is going through today and it'd look like the good old days. We might have it a LITTLE better than Zimbabwe did in the mid 2000s but it won't be by much if it is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> Well that would be a silly way to go about it. We need tariffs and cuts, and no stimulus


Trust me, that's the way an economic slowdown has always been handled. Republican or democrat, president or congress, the knee jerk reaction is always a stimulus program. No exceptions.

It's political. Stimulus shows voters that they're trying to do something about it, and it keeps the masses calm when they're reassured they we can buy our way out of trouble. As politicians, what realistic choice do they have besides stimulus?


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I said that all the underlying factors were still in place.
> _
> "Derivative securities are still unregulated, toxic assets are still on the banks' books, and the banks that were too big to fail are even bigger. Don't expect any of that to change."_
> 
> I think you're just attacking my posts for sport.


Right or wrong my stance never changed.

In the same post you say our issues wont go away (while ignoring several strong game changing factors) you say the recession will last 10 years. this isnt an attack for sport, its pointing out that what you said was a bit funny to me. throughout this thread wriggled around and dodged many things I brought up, then give an arbitrary timeline for a recession to end. and you take this as ME attacking YOU for sport? Its the other way around if anything... 

Now im wondering if you just want the thread shut down, taking it into a more personal nature?? not accusing you of such, but it makes no sense to me why youd think that.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Trust me, that's the way an economic slowdown has always been handled. Republican or democrat, president or congress, the knee jerk reaction is always a stimulus program. No exceptions.
> 
> It's political. Stimulus shows voters that they're trying to do something about it, and it keeps the masses calm when they're reassured they we can buy our way out of trouble. As politicians, what realistic choice do they have besides stimulus?


Yes i know, but this is actually part of the mindset that got use here, should anyone choose to face it head on, (which would really take an entire congress and president) then they would be unlikely to do more of the mindset that got us here. 

much more likely is we ignore it until its to late and we have fewer solid options.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That could happen. If the dollar starts to devalue investors won't buy our debt. That's exactly my concern. Keep the dollar strong by keeping the money moving. If the government stops spending that will be the beginning of the end.


The problem is the government CAN'T keep on spending because at some point it can't get any more money from the workers either because they can't pay any more or they'd rise up in armed rebellion and they can't borrow any more because no one is stupid enough to willingly loan money they KNOW they will never get back. 

Think about yourself. How long do you think you could last if you had to borrow 40% of your yearly budget? How long could you borrow from your Visa card to pay your bills then borrow from American Express to pay your Visa then borrow from from your MasterCard to pay your American Express? This is what the feds are doing and it can't continue.

I head a great line which I'm going to paraphrase to fit here. Borrowing this way is like wearing your grandmother's underpants. Sure, it may cover your hiney, but if you make a habit of it, you've got a serious problem.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> throughout this thread wriggled around and dodged many things I brought up, then give an arbitrary timeline for a recession to end.


My 10 year estimate is only an estimate, but no completely arbitrary. Knowing that the Great Depression lasted about 12 years (1929 market crash to the start of WWII in 1941) and that the systemic damage from the mortgage crisis was severe, I think a 10 year estimate is reasonable.

We will learn later about the real state of the economy today. But rest assured, this recession is one for the history books. People weren't told how bad things were during the Great Depression either. The real stories were told later. I recall reading that the FDR administration wanted to block the release of the film Grapes of Wrath because they didn't want Americans to know how bad things really were, and that was in 1940.

As for the thread being closed, I suggest that you try to avoid taking these issues to a personal level. Disagree with what I say all you wish, but if you have personal opinion about me for posting my ideas it's best to keep them to yourself. GC is much more tolerant about that sort of thing than Mellisa is.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Trust me, that's the way an economic slowdown has always been handled. Republican or democrat, president or congress, the knee jerk reaction is always a stimulus program. No exceptions.
> 
> It's political. Stimulus shows voters that they're trying to do something about it, and it keeps the masses calm when they're reassured they we can buy our way out of trouble. As politicians, what realistic choice do they have besides stimulus?


too bad the stimulus was wasted, huh.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> My 10 year estimate is only an estimate, but no completely arbitrary. Knowing that the Great Depression lasted about 12 years (1929 market crash to the start of WWII in 1941) and that the systemic damage from the mortgage crisis was severe, I think a 10 year estimate is reasonable.
> 
> We will learn later about the real state of the economy today. But rest assured, this recession is one for the history books. People weren't told how bad things were during the Great Depression either. The real stories were told later. I recall reading that the FDR administration wanted to block the release of the film Grapes of Wrath because they didn't want Americans to know how bad things really were, and that was in 1940.
> 
> As for the thread being closed, I suggest that you try to avoid taking these issues to a personal level. Disagree with what I say all you wish, but if you have personal opinion about me for posting my ideas it's best to keep them to yourself. GC is much more tolerant about that sort of thing than Mellisa is.


this is an entirely different world then the last depression. that said it ended when the issues that caused it ended, not before. it wasnt social programs or the war that got us out as many claim, it is when the economy picked up and the climate was better for growing food. economy picked up when people again had disposable income, and it grew from there...

sorry im not the one who tried to take it personal. Pointing out you used what seem arbitrary timelines to me is not personal, and is no different then most every post in the thread.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The problem is the government CAN'T keep on spending because at some point it can't get any more money from the workers either because they can't pay any more or they'd rise up in armed rebellion and they can't borrow any more because no one is stupid enough to willingly loan money they KNOW they will never get back.
> 
> Think about yourself. How long do you think you could last if you had to borrow 40% of your yearly budget? How long could you borrow from your Visa card to pay your bills then borrow from American Express to pay your Visa then borrow from from your MasterCard to pay your American Express? This is what the feds are doing and it can't continue.
> 
> I head a great line which I'm going to paraphrase to fit here. Borrowing this way is like wearing your grandmother's underpants. Sure, it may cover your hiney, but if you make a habit of it, you've got a serious problem.


To be completely fair, this Wall Street Journal sheds some light in Obama's spending binge.

Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch

That's the reality, unless you consider the Wall Street Journal to be a liberal rag.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> too bad the stimulus was wasted, huh.


In my opinion the biggest damage from TARP was Bush convincing the American people that it was going to be possible to buy our way out of the mortgage crisis. People took him at his word. Now they can't figure out why it didn't work and are looking for someone to blame.

*There is nothing the government can do* to buy our way out of this. It never could. The sooner everyone can accept that and change the focus to surviving the recession the better off we'll all be.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> In my opinion the biggest damage from TARP was Bush convincing the American people that it was going to be possible to buy our way out of the mortgage crisis. People took him at his word. Now they can't figure out why it didn't work and are looking for someone to blame.
> 
> *There is nothing the government can do* to buy our way out of this. It never could. The sooner everyone can accept that and change the focus to surviving the recession the better off we'll all be.


this seems totally out of context with the rest of your posts. 

I am curious why you dont point to obama having done the same thing? why bush by name? You realize not even congress can figure out where most of the cash even went!! some of it we do know about, went to simply pointless places. it was a joke our grandkids will pay for.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> I am curious why you dont point to obama having done the same thing?


That's a fair question. People were watching Obama to see what he was going to do. And after all, they were told that the right kind of stimulus could buy our way out by the previous president. All eyes were on him.

Obama couldn't tell the truth that the government was powerless to change things. If he did his political opponents would just say, "There, you see. He just admitted that he doesn't know how to fix it, but us republicans do." No, he had no realistic choice. In fact he still can't be truthful about that, and either can Romney. They both have to hint that they know how to end the recession.

It's absurd to believe that either Bush or Obama thought they could buy our way out of this mess with a few hundred billion. Banks weren't lending because they were holding $7 trillion in toxic real estate assets. I don't believe that anyone aware of that fact could believe that either TARP or the stimulus could fix it. And I believe there is no doubt that both Bush & Obama knew the magnitude of the problem.



silverseeds said:


> why bush by name?


Why Obama by name?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Nevada said:


> In my opinion the biggest damage from TARP was Bush convincing the American people that it was going to be possible to buy our way out of the mortgage crisis. People took him at his word. Now they can't figure out why it didn't work and are looking for someone to blame.
> 
> *There is nothing the government can do* to buy our way out of this. It never could. The sooner everyone can accept that and change the focus to surviving the recession the better off we'll all be.


You talking in circles really hard to take you serious.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That's a fair question. People were watching Obama to see what he was going to do. And after all, they were told that the right kind of stimulus could buy our way out by the previous president. All eyes were on him.


Strange thing, we were told by obama though, about how dangerous the debt were, and how this burdened our kids. that ended up just being empty words. 

You didnt however answer the question as to why you mentioned one and not the other. 



> Obama couldn't tell the truth that the government was powerless to change things. If he did his political opponents would just say, "There, you see. He just admitted that he doesn't know how to fix it, but us republicans do." No, he had no realistic choice. In fact he still can't be truthful about that, and either can Romney. They both have to hint that they know how to end the recession.


No president can fix it I agree, best they could do is stop a TRUE collapse. which neither one is even talking about, nor would most vote for such a person. 


> It's absurd to believe that either Bush or Obama thought they could buy our way out of this mess with a few hundred billion. Banks weren't lending because they were holding $7 trillion in toxic real estate assets. I don't believe that anyone aware of that fact could believe that either TARP or the stimulus could fix it. And I believe there is no doubt that both Bush & Obama knew the magnitude of the problem.



I agree but am still baffled why you say this in relation to your other posts. 




> Why Obama by name?


because two presidents have done this recently, you mentioned one of them, and continually pointed to one side of the aisle and not the other. Earlier you said it wasnt about blame. i find it interesting is all. 

You still didnt answer my actual question though. 

Not the first dodged question of the thread though. Oh well. Rather obvious we wont come up with 14plus percent of our gdp between spending cuts and tax increases. waiting to face the bullet heading our way will only give us less time to dodge it. the fact we can be assured to bust a knee or even break a leg dodging the bullet is no reason to wait to dodge it.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

silverseeds said:


> There were even years recently people on SS got NO cost of living increase. They base it on the CORE CPI, which excludes fuel and food. They also change up what foods they include for the regular CPI to keep those numbers low..
> 
> US special treasury bonds = IOU... the money was spent. Its a fact. the bonds are only good as long as we can come up with the funds, and because of the issues outlined above that is in question into the future...


It includes food and energy

Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U. 

No COLA in 2010 or 2011 because there was no inflation

There was no COLA in 2010 and 2011 because the CPI-W, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor, for those years did not increase above the level of the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined. 

Yes the trust fund is in bonds. It's required by law to invest in governemnt bonds. That's the safest investment going.



veggiecanner said:


> United States Consumer Price Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I am pretty sure it says food and fuel are not included.


See above


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

veggiecanner said:


> You talking in circles really hard to take you serious.


I don't recall saying the the government could end the recession. I believe it has to run its course, which will take years.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Deacon Mike said:


> It includes food and energy
> 
> Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U.
> 
> ...


Actually I could take this apart as well with actual data contrary to the claims therein. But we have been treading water here for a long time already..

amazing though they claim there was no inflation those years. throw it in a search, you will find for those depending on it none of them agree. Nor does anyone else I know who buys things in physical reality. (or so i thought)


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I don't recall saying the the government could end the recession. I believe it has to run its course, which will take years.


No, you are saying the goverment cann't fix the recession but you want them to raise taxes so Obama can look like he is trying to help.
We don't need a president that is only looking like he is trying to help.
The American people deserve not to be taxed just to make the president look good.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> To be completely fair, this Wall Street Journal sheds some light in Obama's spending binge.
> 
> Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch
> 
> That's the reality, unless you consider the Wall Street Journal to be a liberal rag.



On page 2 of the WSJ link, there's this.

If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.

*After adjusting for inflation,* spending under Obama is falling at a 1.4% annual pace â the first decline in real spending since the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon was retreating from the quagmire in Vietnam.

*In per capita terms, real spending will drop by nearly 5% from $11,450 per person in 2009 to $10,900 in 2013 (measured in 2009 dollars).*




Deacon Mike said:


> It includes food and energy
> 
> Most importantly, none of the prominent legislated uses of the CPI excludes food and energy. Social security and federal retirement benefits are updated each year for inflation by the All Items CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Individual income tax parameters and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) returns are based on the All Items CPI-U.
> 
> ...




Now we all know that Wall Street lies, the government lies, and anyone who buys anything from a store knows that when the same item costs more today than it did yesterday it's either inflation or your eyeglasses and memory are going bad.
So, why would any figures need to be adjusted for inflation, if there was no inflation?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I don't recall saying the the government could end the recession. I believe it has to run its course, which will take years.


Its different economy than what used to exist, with different rules. We've exported the "unskilled" manufacturing jobs. What minining, ag, and manufacturing jobs left are high skill and darn few of them, anything that can be automated has been automated to cut labor cost to the minimum. Its a predominant service economy. Service economies dont recover very fast and there is a lot of boom and bust since in economic downturns, services are easiest thing to cut from the household budget. Either they are running red hot or they go icebox cold. No inbetween. Just thank a millionaire/billionaire politician next time you see them. Remember they didnt get those millions and billions (their 30 pieces of silver) digging ditches with a short handled shovel. They made their money the old fashion way, they sold out the country to do it.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

We have exported a large amount of skilled manufacturing as well. Our steel used to be the envy of the world for instance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> On page 2 of the WSJ link, there's this.
> 
> If we attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush, we find that spending under Obama grew by about $200 billion over four years, amounting to a 1.4% annualized increase.
> 
> ...


I can tell you right now, republicans don't care what the fact is. The Obama spending binge myth has grown to the point where the myth has become fact. The truth is no match for Fox News.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To be completely fair, this Wall Street Journal sheds some light in Obama's spending binge.
> 
> Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch
> 
> That's the reality, unless you consider the Wall Street Journal to be a liberal rag.


Who said anything about the O? For one thing its congress who spends the money and what's the average time in office for a congress critter? I'm willing to bet its much longer than the 8 years any President can serve.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> To be completely fair, this Wall Street Journal sheds some light in Obama's spending binge.
> 
> Obama spending binge never happened - MarketWatch
> 
> That's the reality, unless you consider the Wall Street Journal to be a liberal rag.





Nevada said:


> I can tell you right now, republicans don't care what the fact is. The Obama spending binge myth has grown to the point where the myth has become fact. The truth is no match for Fox News.


I laughed a lot then cried a little reading that propaganda piece. 

So obama hasnt had a spending spree because spending is increasing slower now?? We are spending more pretty much every year for decades, and obama isnt on a spending spree because he is increasing it at a slower rate then the last prez? this is just silly. Presidents for decades have been on spending sprees, and obama is spending more then those before him, even according to the piece you posted. 

at a time spending should be being cut drastically, he still increased it even after campaigning in part on bushes reckless spending.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That could happen. If the dollar starts to devalue investors won't buy our debt. That's exactly my concern. Keep the dollar strong by keeping the money moving. If the government stops spending that will be the beginning of the end.


The beginning of the end was in 1971 when Nixon took us off the gold standard. That was just temporary though LOL.. Its been downhill for the dollar ever since. Its also good to note that there has never been a paper currency that has retained any value. It always ends the same way. Inflation and hyperinflation to worthless. 

The Gov cant create or do anything to fix the problem. They already know this. Much of the freebies is nothing more than bread for the peasants while the elite steal the real money. D or R there is no difference when it comes to theft. Last year the Gov took in 2.2 trillion and spent 4.2 trillion. The extra 2 trillion or so was borrowed money. Without the money the economy would take a 2 trillion hit. On a 15 trillion GDP is is substantial but not game endding. In fact if we didnt borrow anything the dollar would be stronger. Gas would be 2.25 and all commodities would be cheaper because of a stronger dollar. Gov spending hurts the Middle class the most

The Gov has never gotten anything right. What are the chances they will get this right? .


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

lurnin2farm said:


> Much of the freebies is nothing more than bread for the peasants while the elite steal the real money.


Would you rather they just steal the money without handing out any bread to the peasants?

Democrats= Steal real money and give bread to peasants.

Republicans= Steal the bread money too....

Third Party= Not a chance as the rabble aint bright enough to overcome the phoney media horse race propaganda. Media says all that matters is the horse race, to pick the winning horse over all else, dont worry your poor little brains over actual facts.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

silverseeds said:


> Actually I could take this apart as well with actual data contrary to the claims therein. But we have been treading water here for a long time already..
> 
> amazing though they claim there was no inflation those years. throw it in a search, you will find for those depending on it none of them agree. Nor does anyone else I know who buys things in physical reality. (or so i thought)


I don't know what you'd take apart, but feel free to try. I've presented the facts. Food and fuel are indeed included in the SS COLA. The claim about inflation is based on facts. You can find it right here. Compare 3rd quarter to 3rd quarter. That's the formula that SS uses.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

If you say so. It would be to long and tedious to pick into. I know costs went up over that time, and they didnt drop suddenly in the third quarter to rise again. We can go with that though... 

Im curious how you would come up with 14% of our GDP though (as of two years ago) to actually fund our spending levels? Or not to big a deal in your opinion for one generation to rob another? Perhaps you think this is sustainable?


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

bignugly said:


> The only reason the rich donate to the charity is for the tax right off not out of the goodness of their hearts.


Stereotype or generalize much?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Darntootin said:


> As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.
> 
> Overall, I think the argument should not be that it's impossible to tax rich corporations. The better argument is that the government can't balance the 2.5 trillion we give now, so what makes us think that giving them more money would solve anything?
> 
> I don't think we are in this mess because 'the government isn't getting enough of our money', we are in this mess because they are mismanaging our tax money and expanding their role beyond what they can pay for. Why should we want government to have more money? So it can grow EVEN BIGGER? Give me a break, tax revenue should be REDUCED!


Your argument would have validity EXCEPT for the fact that taxes are basically, in modern days, a front to make it appear that the government gets their money from loans. They just get the Federal Reserve Bank to write them out a multi-billion dollar check. They run out of tax money only a little while after they get it!


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

> As far as the corporations taking their jobs overseas to avoid taxes here, a simple tariff on foreign goods would prevent that. Make it large enough to eliminate the incentive to move.


Since the politicians are bought and paid for by the big corps I dont see that happening. Especially after they already gave them tax breaks to move the manufacturing overseas.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Deacon Mike said:


> I don't know what you'd take apart, but feel free to try. I've presented the facts. Food and fuel are indeed included in the SS COLA. The claim about inflation is based on facts. You can find it right here. Compare 3rd quarter to 3rd quarter. That's the formula that SS uses.





silverseeds said:


> If you say so. It would be to long and tedious to pick into. I know costs went up over that time, and they didnt drop suddenly in the third quarter to rise again. We can go with that though...


Naw, silverseeds, it only takes a few seconds of reading that chart he posted to see that all the numbers increase whether year to year or 3rd quarter to 3rd quarter.
Which means the link that was supposed to prove there was no inflation actually proves there was inflation every year with the exception of 2OO8 to 2OO9.

1st 2nd 3rd 4th yr
2007	198.905	203.232	203.596	205.335	202.767
2008	207.715	212.903	215.495	208.097	211.053
2009	206.542	209.224	211.001	211.752	209.630
2010	212.879	213.974	214.136	214.878	213.967
2011	217.986	222.406	223.233	222.674	221.575


The inflation rate, if you believe the chart of government lies, works out to about 1 to 1.5 % inflation for the two years claimed that there was none.
That's why anyone who quotes government figures gives me a good laugh.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Naw, silverseeds, it only takes a few seconds of reading that chart he posted to see that all the numbers increase whether year to year or 3rd quarter to 3rd quarter.
> Which means the link that was supposed to prove there was no inflation actually proves there was inflation every year with the exception of 2OO8 to 2OO9.
> 
> 1st 2nd 3rd 4th yr
> ...


Clearly you missed post number 286

There was no COLA in 2010 and 2011 because the CPI-W, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor, for those years did not increase above the level of the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Deacon Mike said:


> Clearly you missed post number 286
> 
> There was no COLA in 2010 and 2011 because the CPI-W, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor, for those years did not increase above the level of the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined.



Nope, that was where I got the figures from that confirmed there WAS inflation.
Like I said, government lies.
If you want to believe that it's only inflation if and when the government says so, OK.
But those of us in this country, on this planet, that buy gasoline and food every week know better.
The same thing is going on in the housing market.
House prices rose .5% this July over last July. Whoopee!
Of course the fact that they dropped 5O% from 2OO7 levels and are still far below that, shouldn't be mentioned at all, lest someone figure out the truth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, that was where I got the figures from that confirmed there WAS inflation.
> Like I said, government lies.


Alma believed the same. I guess the government does what it wants to do.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Alma believed the same. I guess the government does what it wants to do.


No, they follow the formula. the average for the third quarter in any year has to be higher than the average in the third quarter the last year a cola was given. 2011 was the first year the 3rd quarter average was higher than 2008.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> No, they follow the formula. the average for the third quarter in any year has to be higher than the average in the third quarter the last year a cola was given. 2011 was the first year the 3rd quarter average was higher than 2008.


Be that as it may, Alma went to her grave believing that she wasn't getting a fair cost of living adjustment from SS. Nothing can change that.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Over taxing people based on the fact that they worked hard for lots of money is a slap in the face to all Americans.

Just one more way this country punishes the most productive people, and rewards those who choose not to work or get an education.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

HermitJohn said:


> Would you rather they just steal the money without handing out any bread to the peasants?
> 
> Democrats= Steal real money and give bread to peasants.
> 
> ...


This.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Haven said:


> Over taxing people based on the fact that they worked hard for lots of money is a slap in the face to all Americans.
> 
> Just one more way this country punishes the most productive people, and rewards those who choose not to work or get an education.


Are you suggesting that I didn't work hard? Are you criticizing my productivity? Why didn't I get a tax break for my hard work & education?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Haven said:


> Over taxing people based on the fact that they worked hard for lots of money is a slap in the face to all Americans.
> 
> Just one more way this country punishes the most productive people, and rewards those who choose not to work or get an education.





Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that I didn't work hard? Are you criticizing my productivity? Why didn't I get a tax break for my hard work & education?


Since the thread is back on topic, I'd like to offer a suggestion, lol.

There seems to be this impossible tug of war between two sides that won't give an inch and won't consider anything but old ways that haven't worked too well, such as the title of this thread.
Naturally, the only thing to do is point fingers and shift blame, because that's all our leaders seem to do.
If you aren't rich, it's only because you're uneducated and lazy.
If you are rich, it's only because you're dishonest.
There isn't any other way you can possibly look at it and no possible solution. We just have to bash the other side until they give in.:umno:


I got this idea watching 2 Catholics debate the wealth gap in this country.
We got this big dispute going on in this country about taxes and fairness right?
And it IS hard to say a guy who makes $2O million/yr should pay a LOWER rate than the guy who busts his butt 7O hrs a week to make $5O,OOO.....at least MOST people can see the problem with that, the ones that don't get off track talking about capital gains versus income. After all, it's ALL money.
Anyway, one side wants to lower their tax rate even more and the other side wants to stick it to them [the "rich" I mean] all in the name of "fairness".
And both sides are full of it.
Even the nun and the priest disagreed on how to do it, same religion as Ryan.

Well, then the light bulb came on when they were talking about corporations and CEO's and shareholders........the Capitalism vs. Communism thing always clouds the solution.
So.........Why not pay the worker and the CEO and the shareholder the same way? Without all 3, the company folds and they should all share the profit, right? 
Pay them with stock! Either a percentage or the whole check, whichever they want.
The tax rate would be the same for all, 15% capital gains, not income. What's not fair about that?
They all share the risk and have a vested interest in the company making a profit. That levels the field.
It gives every shareholder, worker AND CEO a voice in how the company is run. Don't need a union now, do we?
Want a raise this year? No problem, as the stock rises, I make more. Just like the CEO and the shareholder.
It'll also cut out the scam artists on Wall Street. The price of the stock better be correctly valued, because every Friday on payday, millions of workers will be calling a broker to cash some in. That's a whole bunch of eyes scrutinizing how much the company is worth, how much debt and profit they carry, etc.

I know there are a few bugs to work out, like non publicly traded stocks and public employees, but that can be handled too.
The point is, this would take all the whining and finger pointing out of the equation, because everyone is treated the same. No more class warfare.
Then both sides would HAVE to tackle the REAL issues and get to work.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that I didn't work hard? Are you criticizing my productivity? Why didn't I get a tax break for my hard work & education?


Certainly not. What I mean is, work to gather wealth. There is a formula for doing this and in this country we all have the opportunity to achieve it if that is what we want. Some people choose to do this and are punished by being forced to pay more in taxes in one year than most people earn as an entire yearly salary.

Imagine for one minute, sitting in a chair writing out a check for 15k or 50k in taxes, how does that make a person feel, especially when they know where that cash is going and the trash it will be used for?

Some people choose to get pregnant in their teens, marry too young, drop out of HS, have 6 kids, not go onto educate themselves after grade 12, buy things they cant afford and go into credit card debt. Thse people are rewarded with low taxes and govt handouts. I personally have to pay back thousands in taxes each year. I know people with tons of kids who cant wait to go on a shopping spree and buy more trash each tax season when they get their fat refund/reward for being low income with too many kids.


----------



## Mikedero (Jul 19, 2012)

you see this is where I differ from allot of you. I feel that if I have to pay 25% tax so does joe blow rich guy. I understand that if he pays 14% it well dwarfs my 25% but equal % is what I am reffering to and as it should be. I rather accross the board have a 20% Tax rate for everyone from Rich to poor how is that not fair? the middle class gets a break and the wealthy lets face it would not stop their lifestyle. But if I had to pay another 5% tax it would affect my life allot. so to be honest they are not carrying their fair share. Lets not forget that 70+ years ago they used to pay more in taxes % wise then the middle class, the rich are the ones that paid for these loop holes. I do not care for either side Dem or rep, but lets not all kids ourselves none of them gives a rats you know what about anyone but them selves.


----------



## Mikedero (Jul 19, 2012)

Haven said:


> Over taxing people based on the fact that they worked hard for lots of money is a slap in the face to all Americans.
> 
> Just one more way this country punishes the most productive people, and rewards those who choose not to work or get an education.


I think you might want to rethink those words. I went to school I am in the accounting field I work 50-70 hours per week, run a small home business and my little homestead. as a household we make about 150K per year and I pay about 26% in taxes per year. 

So you think some rich Brat or some actor that can not act, or some baseball player works harder then I do and pay under 15% is fair. Forget that or are you just one of the few people that think only the welfare and dirt poor people want a break in their taxes. Hey I am one of those people writing a 15K check for taxes yearly. 

I took that very personal, I know I do well for myself but I also know I put myself for school. 

I think welfare needs to drug test before getting their money, I tihnk a 6-8 month time limit should be in place. NO free handouts but equal %% on taxes as it should be.


----------



## Mikedero (Jul 19, 2012)

Oh I forgot to add my last vacation was 9 years ago and that was my honeymoon. 

Sorry not sure if you know this or not most of the so called Rich people got their money 3 ways

they got it from their family

they kissed major butt and thru everyone they could under the bus to make it to the top 

or they either became a sports player, singer, or actor/actress. 

there are fewer people actually working hard to become rich, to be honest coming from middle management. the hardest workers in my company are the lowest paid employees we have. I know I work harder then my boss does and I know more then him. But I refuse to buy him coffee daily and kiss his butt like othher coworkers so I stay where I am at.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Attention people:

The ultra rich are paying 38% federal income tax, not 15%.

The 15% is only for capital gains, and capital gains are earned on money that is after taxes, so the 38% was already paid on it before it was invested. Then it is 15% on what it earns.

Everyone, and I mean every single one of you, will pay 15% on your capital gains. That is not a privilege for the wealthy only.

Over a third of all taxpayers don't pay any federal income tax at all. I don't ever hear anyone complaining about them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

oregon woodsmok said:


> Attention people:
> 
> The ultra rich are paying 38% federal income tax, not 15%.
> 
> ...


Yes they do. I see plenty are being "taken in" on this 15% tax thinking it is Income Tax they are paying. Nope it is Capital Gain Taxes.
. Yes sir re Bob, those Obama ads sure have worked well, not even mentioning that the 15% was Capitol Gain Taxes not income taxes. LOL
Anybody can get 15% on Capital Gains that is what the tax law is.
They have paid 35% on the money at the start. 
So they are Not Paying 15% Income Taxes at all they have paid 35% on the money already.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Mikedero said:


> Oh I forgot to add my last vacation was 9 years ago and that was my honeymoon.
> 
> Sorry not sure if you know this or not most of the so called Rich people got their money 3 ways
> 
> ...


Nonsense. I know several people who started with nothing and became wealthy. With your attitude, I am not surprised you don't advance. Most companies call people like you dead wood. Always think they are smarter than everyone else and think they do all the work. The truth is, people who get wealthy have a good work ethic and are smart with money. Romney fits that description. There is an old saying that if you take care of the nickels, the dollars will take care of themselves. Much truth in that. I saw a guy on tv that worked with Romney during the olympics. They were losing lots of money when Romney took over. He cited the example of those in charge buying pizzas for 5 bucks each and giving them to the workers. Romney changed it by having them cut the pizza into 8 pieces and selling them to the workers for $1.00 a slice. He turned a 5 dollar loss into a 3 dollar profit. That seems like small potatoes to most of us, but successful people pay attention to details. Romney can find a LOT of details in out national budget to pay attention to. Right now, no one is taking care of the nickels.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

Dem or Rep it doesnt matter. 

The Pollock decision in 1887 made direct taxation from our labor unconstitutional. Well, it didnt make it unconstitutional it was unconstitutional and still is. 

The Irony is that the 16th amendment is what the IRS states give them the right to tax you labor (From whatever source derived)


> Defense testimony showed a case titled Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that the 16th amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The defense then brought out a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein an excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.


You can read more here. #16F: THE BECRAFT LANDMARK CASE

Its extremely important to understand how this hole taxation scam was pulled on us. Read that above paragraph a couple of times so you truly understand the implications there. 

After you understand that you can start to look at things in a different light. The biggest one being that we have been bamboozeled. We sit here and argue if the other guy is paying his fair share. There is no fair share LOL. None of us (except those earning money in certain ways) should be paying an "Income tax" 

I mentioned that all Gov Letters or forms requiring you to comply with the form or letter requires an OMB number. (I said this in another thread, sorry) Look at the 1040 and take the OMB number off of it. Check it out for yourself and you'll soon find that the OMB number for the 1040 is invalid. 

I don't give you this info for you to stop paying taxes, only to educate and understand the real issue. If we really want to solve this problem we need to get congress to step in and do something. That's the only true solution. 
By doing nothing we basically accept whatever they throw at us. They can throw a 10-20% fair tax out and say there that's fair. However is it constitutional? No but if you all accept it then they win. If you dont want to do whats right yourselves then do it for your children or they will grow up to be slaves just like you and I.

Bottom line is the SC says the direct tax on labor is unconstitutional then when challenged again says the 16th gave congress no new power of taxation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Alma believed the same. I guess the government does what it wants to do.


When the seat of power is far away from the citizenry the citizens lose the power to control it therefore it controls them.

Now that all the power is in DC the government has no need to listen to the great unwashed because as long as it tosses them some table scraps and makes sure American Idol and/or Survivor are shown the horde will follow the Judas goat where ever it goes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that I didn't work hard? Are you criticizing my productivity? Why didn't I get a tax break for my hard work & education?


You didn't take deductions on your 1040 for business cost?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Mikedero said:


> Oh I forgot to add my last vacation was 9 years ago and that was my honeymoon.
> 
> Sorry not sure if you know this or not most of the so called Rich people got their money 3 ways
> 
> ...


In Cambodia in the 70s this was the same kind of class warfare non-thinking led to the murder of most all of the educated people like doctors, engineers, teachers. 

In the 30s the Nazis blamed the Jews in a similar fashion. 

And while you're at it with your anti-rich hate speech, you might as well blame all blacks for raping white women, and gays for being pedophiles, and Mexicans for being lazy. 

Can you cite any sources for your "knowledge" of where people get their money? 

I know many rich people and almost all got their money by providing a service or product that Americans wanted to purchase. Some of these people are nice and giving and some of the are major league jerks. 

People get rich and stay rich because they know how to manage their money, plain and simple. Sports Illustrated says that the majority of basketball and football players are bankrupt within a few years of retiring. Mike Tyson was bankrupt. Many lottery winners are broke within a few years. Many child actors make millions before they are adults and have little or nothing but memories of the big money a few years later. Making lots of money doesn't keep you rich. The tax system doesn't keep you rich. Having world class skill or luck in one aspect of your life doesn't keep you rich.

And I might add, envy and slander doesn't make you rich.

People are rich because they mange their money well. They either provide investment capital to help others or products and services that people want. So I'm not sure why they deserve hate or contempt or fines and penalties just because they are successful within the bounds of the laws and regulations that we all have to live with.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

watcher said:


> You didn't take deductions on your 1040 for business cost?


And you didn't take that rather large personal deduction for every member of your family? Did you forget to deduct your mortgage interest and your medical costs? If you are homesteading, did you not fill out your schedule F and take all of those deductions?

How about your donations to charities. Those are all tax deductible.

Every level in society gets tax breaks and government subsidies. Heck, the government handed out cash to everybody who filed, whether they paid any taxes or not.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

oregon woodsmok said:


> And you didn't take that rather large personal deduction for every member of your family? Did you forget to deduct your mortgage interest and your medical costs? If you are homesteading, did you not fill out your schedule F and take all of those deductions?
> 
> How about your donations to charities. Those are all tax deductible.
> 
> Every level in society gets tax breaks and government subsidies. Heck, the government handed out cash to everybody who filed, whether they paid any taxes or not.


I've said before I take every legal deduction I can. If I'm forced to play the game I'm going to play it to the best of my ability. 

But that's not the point. Nevada asked where his tax break was. I was pointing it out to him. If he wants more tax breaks he needs to have a business which can produce more taxes. For example many businesses get huge tax breaks if they build in an area. Those breaks are made up by the extra taxes the business makes by the money it brings into the area. More income means more income tax, more sales tax, more real estate tax and the like.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Haven said:


> Over taxing people based on the fact that they worked hard for lots of money is a slap in the face to all Americans.
> 
> Just one more way this country punishes the most productive people, and rewards those who choose not to work or get an education.


*CHOOSE?*
Like most have a *CHOICE?*


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> many businesses get huge tax breaks if they build in an area. Those breaks are made up by the extra taxes the business makes by the money it brings into the area. More income means more income tax, more sales tax, more real estate tax and the like.


Or it could mean they paid off a politcian ?:ashamed:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

poppy said:


> Nonswhen Romney took over. He cited the example of those in charge buying pizzas for 5 bucks each and giving them to the workers. Romney changed it by having them cut the pizza into 8 pieces and selling them to the workers for $1.00 a slice. He turned a 5 dollar loss into a 3 dollar profit. .


 Yep that seems to be the rich folks way. Ballance everything on the backs of the poor.
You see what your forgetting is that for the people that were working there that was a part of the Pay. A fringe benifit if you will.
If the deal was in place when they took the jobs they factored the pizza into the pay. Then apparently Romny just took it out of the deal.
What Romney did was steal 8 dollars from the workers with every pizza.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

oregon woodsmok said:


> Attention people:
> 
> The ultra rich are paying 38% federal income tax, not 15%.
> 
> ...





arabian knight said:


> Yes they do. I see plenty are being "taken in" on this 15% tax thinking it is Income Tax they are paying. Nope it is Capital Gain Taxes.
> . Yes sir re Bob, those Obama ads sure have worked well, not even mentioning that the 15% was Capitol Gain Taxes not income taxes. LOL
> Anybody can get 15% on Capital Gains that is what the tax law is.
> They have paid 35% on the money at the start.
> So they are Not Paying 15% Income Taxes at all they have paid 35% on the money already.



If someone takes $1 in "income" and $1O,OOO,OOO in stock compensation or options, for the year, slice it any way you want and it still comes out to 15%.
Why do you think Romney said he paid the percentage he paid?
How is that even possible if he was really paying 38%?
Why wouldn't he say he paid 38% if that's what it was?
Those guys paying 13 and 14% aren't paying 38% in income tax and then paying another 15% in capital gains.
That's what some would like us to believe, but that's not the way the real world works and some of us know it. Ask Zuckerberg how it works.
Go back and read my post, #312. If we were to pay everyone in that way, then everyone would be taxed at the same rate.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I always love it when people throw out the "you hate them because you don't have their money" argument. It is so obviously a red herring. For a Republican saying that is exactly the same as some snotty Democrat saying that the Republicans didn't vote for Obama because he was black; again, a total red herring argument that never actually has anything to do with the topics at hand.
Let me examine some of the ways I dislike rich people:
Some of them lobby excessively to promote certain politicians into office, who then give them kickbacks that normal citizens do not get. For example, unethically dumping toxins into rivers. Of course, that's a different issue in and of itself.
Some of them use their money to promote evil. Some use their money to go around laws to get what they want - you "see" this happen all the time.
And rich companies - generally in the form of massive corporations - who continuously step on our constitutional rights, pay off the government to do what it wants them to do, and dumps toxic waste into poverty-stricken minority-population areas. 
If you think it's just the "Gooberment" (and anyone who actually uses that phrase needs to take a Remedial English course), just look who's behind them. 
That, is personally, why I dislike rich people... 
But, notice I said some of them. Not all. Rich people are just people, but with more money. So, I do not dislike them for what they are. I dislike them (the ones I do dislike) for what they have chosen to do, and because their unethical decisions impact us for more than a poor person's unethical decisions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Yep that seems to be the rich folks way. Ballance everything on the backs of the poor.
> You see what your forgetting is that for the people that were working there that was a part of the Pay. A fringe benifit if you will.
> If the deal was in place when they took the jobs they factored the pizza into the pay. Then apparently Romny just took it out of the deal.
> What Romney did was steal 8 dollars from the workers with every pizza.


No, he gave them the choice of either paying for their pizza or doing without. If not enough people agreed to pay the company would have had to stop supplying pizza.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> No, he gave them the choice of either paying for their pizza or doing without. If not enough people agreed to pay the company would have had to stop supplying pizza.


LOL Only a rich man would see it that way. Exageration makes things easyer to see so lets look at the following fiction case.
A Rich man needs a employee in a remote company town.
The pay is average but he is told the company will furnish Living quarters food and healthcare and transportation .

After he gets there he is told the company changed its mind. Those things cost to much to furnish free in such a remote place ( kinda like romneys Pizza)
In fact the charges for the above items total more than his remaining pay...
SLAVERY!

The point is you dont change the rules AFTER you hire someone.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> The point is you dont change the rules AFTER you hire someone.


Exactly. If the employer finds a need to change the rules after they have hired someone, they should fire all the current employees and hire new people who are willing to accept the new benefits pkg. 

I certainly can't see anything wrong with that plan.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

> The point is you dont change the rules AFTER you hire someone.


So you take a job at minimum wage when you start. a year later your looking for a raise. Now who wants to change the rules? Apply that to whatever pay you start at. 

Dont forget some of those rules are forced on your by the Gov as well. Maybe that Pizza was able to be written off when you first started and now it no longer is. Do you blame him or the Gov for changing the rules? Should he be forced to continue to buy pizza even after the Gov changed the rules? 

Even if the Gov didn't change the rules and it was his decision to save money. Its his money, why shouldnt he spend it or not, as he sees fit? Not happy? No problem go work someplace else. Its called the free market. 

For those that work for someone else, here's what you fail to understand. Every week when you get your paycheck. That money is coming directly out of the owners pocket and into yours. Those that complain the most are usually the ones that have no concept of running a business.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Yep that seems to be the rich folks way. Ballance everything on the backs of the poor.
> You see what your forgetting is that for the people that were working there that was a part of the Pay. A fringe benifit if you will.
> If the deal was in place when they took the jobs they factored the pizza into the pay. Then apparently Romny just took it out of the deal.
> What Romney did was steal 8 dollars from the workers with every pizza.


You assume too much. I read nothing that said free pizza was part of the job. It was likely just something they did. Unless their employer promised them free pizza when he hired them, it was not owed to them in the least. Heck, a lot of places used to give employees free coffee as a matter of habit. As coffee prices climbed, many of them set a can out for donations or set a price on the coffee.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> The point is you dont change the rules AFTER you hire someone.


I dont see how that is any different than anyother company that cuts benefits, increases out of pocket expenses for health insurance etc. I dont know of a company that isnt making cuts in order to become profitable and avoid bankruptcy. Nothing stays the same forever.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL Only a rich man would see it that way. Exageration makes things easyer to see so lets look at the following fiction case.


Well your theory is shot to pieces. I'm FAR from rich and that's the way I see it. TANSTAAFL 




fantasymaker said:


> A Rich man needs a employee in a remote company town.
> The pay is average but he is told the company will furnish Living quarters food and healthcare and transportation .
> 
> After he gets there he is told the company changed its mind. Those things cost to much to furnish free in such a remote place ( kinda like romneys Pizza)
> ...


Happens all the time, especially when the company is LOSING MONEY! Your company still give you a turkey for Thanksgiving and a ham for Christmas?

You don't like the new rules you are free to leave. I've left jobs because the rules changed.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

lurnin2farm said:


> So you take a job at minimum wage when you start. a year later your looking for a raise. Now who wants to change the rules? Apply that to whatever pay you start at. .


Nope thats different You ask your employer for a raise you dont empose it.




lurnin2farm said:


> Even if the Gov didn't change the rules and it was his decision to save money. Its his money, why shouldnt he spend it or not, as he sees fit? Not happy? No problem go work someplace else. Its called the free market.
> .


Nope it wasnt his money it was the employees, he had agreed to exchange their labor for money and Pizza.


poppy said:


> You assume too much. I read nothing that said free pizza was part of the job. It was likely just something they did. Unless their employer promised them free pizza when he hired them, it was not owed to them in the least. Heck, a lot of places used to give employees free coffee as a matter of habit. As coffee prices climbed, many of them set a can out for donations or set a price on the coffee.


just cause YOU didnt read about it doesnt make it so.Providing something in the course of the job makes it a part of the deal.



beaglebiz said:


> I dont see how that is any different than anyother company that cuts benefits, increases out of pocket expenses for health insurance etc. I dont know of a company that isnt making cuts in order to become profitable and avoid bankruptcy. Nothing stays the same forever.


Its not a bit different See we agree!



watcher said:


> You don't like the new rules you are free to leave. I've left jobs because the rules changed.


Correct you can leave! And you did ! Why ? Because you agree with me after a imposed rule change the value of the compensation no longer was the same and you felt it was inadaquit.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> Nope thats different You ask your employer for a raise you dont empose it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And it is just that kind of thinking that unions have abused for years so companies have to make changes to survive.
So what if you were hired and some things were cut out, Nothing in life is a guarantee and that included a job and what is at time of start of hire can sure change through the years. 
Companies have to make decisions like it not you and others are not owners. The companies can change anything they wish and anytime they wish. You know the door swings both ways.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And it is just that kind of thinking that unions have abused for years so companies have to make changes to survive.
> So what if you were hired and some things were cut out, Nothing in life is a guarantee and that included a job and what is at time of start of hire can sure change through the years.
> Companies have to make decisions like it not you and others are not owners. The companies can change anything they wish and anytime they wish. You know the door swings both ways.


Strange how contracts are so sacred for corporations and executives, but when it comes to contracts with workers contracts aren't so important. This recession has brought-out a lot of glaring examples of bankers, developers, & corporations getting huge breaks from contractual obligations at the expense of the little guy.

The best example I can think of was when a local developer in Las Vegas offered a price guarantee back when the mortgage crisis first started, since buyers were suddenly reluctant to buy in an unsure market. The developer signed an agreement promising to refund the difference if real estate prices went down. If course prices plummeted and homeowners demanded refunds. A judge let the developer out of the contract on the basis that enforcing the contract would bankrupt the developer's company. So why is it unthinkable for the developer to go bankrupt, but it's okay for homeowners to go bankrupt? Signing a contract with a big company just sets-up the proverbial 'heads they win, tails we lose' result.

I can understand a union wanting to work along with a company keep the company healthy and maintain jobs, but they are under no obligation to do so. If a company goes bankrupt trying to live-up to their contractual obligations then that's the result of poor management, so they have nobody to blame but themselves.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Strange how contracts are so sacred for corporations and executives, but when it comes to contracts with workers contracts aren't so important.
> 
> ... So why is it unthinkable for the developer to go bankrupt, but it's okay for homeowners to go bankrupt? Signing a contract with a big company just sets-up the proverbial 'heads they win, tails we lose' result.
> 
> I can understand a union wanting to work along with a company keep the company healthy and maintain jobs, but they are under no obligation to do so. If a company goes bankrupt trying to live-up to their contractual obligations then that's the result of poor management, so they have nobody to blame but themselves.


First, when an employer hires an employee, there is no contract without some document or additional agreement made. Contract law can be somewhat fuzzy like everything else the lawyers have messed up, but in its most basic form, unless an agreement was made for a certain level of benefits for a specific period of time in exchange for some level of service from the employee, there is no contract. 

In the real world, adults on either side of the table can change the terms of employment at anytime he can get the agreement of the other party but of course that includes the right for either to terminate the agreement. Yes, this tends to give more power to the employer, especially when unemployment is high, but you are always free to start your own business. 

That's what I don't get about all the people who seemingly hate employers, think their boss is so dumb or evil, just start your own biz and be the boss you always wanted.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> Nope thats different You ask your employer for a raise you dont empose it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And just as you have the right to walk away, the employer has the right to walk away. He could just say you're fired and I'll rehire anyone who will take the old deal minus the pizza or he can cut back on the pizza and employees quit if they don't like it. The results are the same.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And it is just that kind of thinking that unions have abused for years so companies have to make changes to survive.


Of course I'm old -- old enough to remember when republicans wouldn't dare go up against things like Social Security, Medicare, or even unions. Consider this quote.

_"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."_
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952-----
Eisenhower Quote on Abolishing Social Security - Urban Legends

If there was any question about how committed Eisenhower was to that idea, particularly with regard to unions, here is part of his 1956 campaign platform.

_"The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration."_
Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956

So how have republicans so completely run off the rails from their core values?


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Your all missing the point.!!! 
It reveals how he thinks.
His responce to a problem was to shaft the employees.
he hit the pizza eaters did you hear anything about him cutting out the caviar in the exsecutive lunch room?
Is that the government you want?
If he follows true to form his responce to every money crisis in government will be to hit the Lower level taxpayers with more taxes sorta like that no new taxes guy.
yep its his right no its not right!



CesumPec said:


> And just as you have the right to walk away, the employer has the right to walk away. He could just say you're fired and I'll rehire anyone who will take the old deal minus the pizza or he can cut back on the pizza and employees quit if they don't like it. The results are the same.





CesumPec said:


> First, when an employer hires an employee, there is no contract without some document or additional agreement made. Contract law can be somewhat fuzzy like everything else the lawyers have messed up, but in its most basic form, unless an agreement was made for a certain level of benefits for a specific period of time in exchange for some level of service from the employee, there is no contract.
> 
> In the real world, adults on either side of the table can change the terms of employment at anytime he can get the agreement of the other party but of course that includes the right for either to terminate the agreement. Yes, this tends to give more power to the employer, especially when unemployment is high, but you are always free to start your own business.
> 
> That's what I don't get about all the people who seemingly hate employers, think their boss is so dumb or evil, just start your own biz and be the boss you always wanted.





arabian knight said:


> And it is just that kind of thinking that unions have abused for years so companies have to make changes to survive.
> So what if you were hired and some things were cut out, Nothing in life is a guarantee and that included a job and what is at time of start of hire can sure change through the years.
> Companies have to make decisions like it not you and others are not owners. The companies can change anything they wish and anytime they wish. You know the door swings both ways.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> Your all missing the point.!!!
> It reveals how he thinks.
> His responce to a problem was to shaft the employees.
> he hit the pizza eaters did you hear anything about him cutting out the caviar in the exsecutive lunch room?
> ...


In message 332 you said the point is you don't change the rules after you hire someone. Once you decide what your point is get back to me.

I get it, you don't like capitalism or businessmen. You want gov't to protect you from having to compete. But the trouble with your theory is that romney has done lots more than make one decision on pizza, you don't know that there was an executive lunch room, you don't know what was on the menu before and after he got there, and you don't have his history as a gov to back up your assertion.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> I get it, you don't like capitalism or businessmen. You want gov't to protect you from having to compete. But the trouble with your theory is that romney has done lots more than make one decision on pizza, you don't know that there was an executive lunch room, you don't know what was on the menu before and after he got there, and you don't have his history as a gov to back up your assertion.


The point is that when the Romney's have money trouble it's not the same thing as when working class people have money trouble. You won't see the Romney's going through the refrigerator looking for leftover meatloaf and wondering if they will have enough to feed their family until their next paycheck. The Romney's will continue to eat steak with or without money trouble.

Nobody here is against capitalism, but a lot of Americans are starting to wonder if the flavor of corporatism republicans are trying to sell us as capitalism is good for the country. We've reached the point where the government is by and for corporations, not by and for the people. That needs to change. We have to find a way to get corporate money out of Washington.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> he hit the pizza eaters did you hear anything about him cutting out the caviar in the exsecutive lunch room?


this is a ridiculous assumption. You can just think and twist anything around any way you want (the caviar). Most execs I have worked with ate subway at their desks that they paid for. 
the alternative to the whole problem would be for us to be caught in a twilight zone time warp, where nothing ever changes..


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

At one time, America was primarily a country of small businesses and family farms.

A lot of the rhetoric in this thread affirms my belief that many folks no longer could prosper by self-employment.

Somebody said something earlier about if one doesn't like working for someone else, they should quit that job and become the boss they've always wanted to be.

I find that to be sage advice.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The point is that when the Romney's have money trouble it's not the same thing as when working class people have money trouble. You won't see the Romney's going through the refrigerator looking for leftover meatloaf and wondering if they will have enough to feed their family until their next paycheck. The Romney's will continue to eat steak with or without money trouble.
> 
> Nobody here is against capitalism, but a lot of Americans are starting to wonder if the flavor of corporatism republicans are trying to sell us as capitalism is good for the country. We've reached the point where the government is by and for corporations, not by and for the people. That needs to change. We have to find a way to get corporate money out of Washington.


And the Obamas will continue to eat steak as well. So if your money troubles point is the ever changing point of this thread, it is moot. one of them is going to be pres and neither have money trouble.

I agree we have to get corp control and protectionism out of politics but probably disagree on how to accomplish that. More complex regulations have given them more control, not less and made it harder for small biz to compete. If we had let some big businesses fail then they would have been replaced by smaller businesses. Neither repubs or dems are going to help us with this problem. We are going to have to start electing libertarians.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The point is that when the Romney's have money trouble it's not the same thing as when working class people have money trouble. You won't see the Romney's going through the refrigerator looking for leftover meatloaf and wondering if they will have enough to feed their family until their next paycheck. The Romney's will continue to eat steak with or without money trouble.
> 
> Nobody here is against capitalism, but a lot of Americans are starting to wonder if the flavor of corporatism republicans are trying to sell us as capitalism is good for the country. We've reached the point where the government is by and for corporations, not by and for the people. That needs to change. We have to find a way to get corporate money out of Washington.


Which is better corporate republicans or fascist democrats? Would you rather have things controlled by people who are driven by profit and know if they don't keep consumers happy their profit will suffer or by people who think they know best and it doesn't matter what you think they will tell you what is best for you because they know best?

If I don't like the way a company does business I have the ability to either deal with another company or just do w/o whatever that business offers. If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Jolly said:


> At one time, America was primarily a country of small businesses and family farms.


Ah. . .when was this? I think if you check you will find out there has always been "the rich" out there and they have been the 'movers and shakers'. 




Jolly said:


> A lot of the rhetoric in this thread affirms my belief that many folks no longer could prosper by self-employment.


Remove the "no longer" from that and you have the point. Most people are perfectly happy being wage slaves. All the responsibility they want is getting to work on time. They don't want to have to worry about how much product to produce. They don't want to have to worry about trying to set a price for the product which will cover cost, allow for future improvements and make a profit. They don't want to have to worry about the dozens, if not hundreds, of problems the people running the business face on a daily basis. 

But then there's another problem, government interference. Even if you want to start your own business you are held back by the government. Ever notice how big businesses don't worry too much about new regulations? In a lot of case they support them. Why? Because the more regulations a business had to follow the more difficult it is to start a new one which means less competition for the established businesses.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If I don't like the way a company does business I have the ability to either deal with another company or just do w/o whatever that business offers. If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


Not really. You can't deal with WaMu anymore, since the government refused to bail it out. Chase bank took it over, so you have to deal with one of the banks that the government likes. It's not really free-market capitalism when the government decides which businesses stay in business and which ones don't.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I agree Nevada, seems like these days the common working person is the enemy. Without people to do the work those who are wealthy would not prosper either. Everyone has to work together~



Nevada said:


> Of course I'm old -- old enough to remember when republicans wouldn't dare go up against things like Social Security, Medicare, or even unions. Consider this quote.
> 
> _"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."_
> President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952-----
> ...


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

watcher said:


> If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


You can suck it up and take it or you can pay the fine or go to jail.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Not really. You can't deal with WaMu anymore, since the government refused to bail it out. Chase bank took it over, so you have to deal with one of the banks that the government likes.


I agree to a point. You don't have to deal with banks at all. There are some people who don't. Its not easy but you still have a choice.




Nevada said:


> It's not really free-market capitalism when the government decides which businesses stay in business and which ones don't.


Correct, that's fascism defined.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL Only a rich man would see it that way. Exageration makes things easyer to see so lets look at the following fiction case.


Actually, exaggeration is creating a straw man argument - an intentional misrepresentation of the other's position so that you can more easily defeat it.

You tell me good clean water is good for me. I say drinking 10 gallons of water in ten minutes will kill me. See, by exaggerating your position I have done nothing to add to an intelligent discussion. 

What would be better is that the opposing person's position is confronted directly with logic.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

beaglebiz said:


> this is a ridiculous assumption. You can just think and twist anything around any way you want (the caviar). Most execs I have worked with ate subway at their desks that they paid for.
> the alternative to the whole problem would be for us to be caught in a twilight zone time warp, where nothing ever changes..


Belive me If he had come in and droped all the executives wages to minimum wage we would have heard about it.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> I get it, you don't like capitalism or businessmen. You want gov't to protect you from having to compete. .


LOL I AM a capitalist busnessman. ...and self employed.:hammer:


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> And just as you have the right to walk away, the employer has the right to walk away. .





watcher said:


> If I don't like the way a company does business I have the ability to either deal with another company or just do w/o whatever that business offers. If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


But in this case its Romneys history of imposing the pain on the little people that WILL BE the government you cant walk away from.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Belive me If he had come in and droped all the executives wages to minimum wage we would have heard about it.


Every place I have ever worked (two were huge corporations) the execs had the same health care deductions, same vacation and paid time off and everyone paid for their own lunch. We used to get free coffee, and when that ended my boss bought everyone a coffee every day, including one for himself. He made more money than I did, but he had responsibilities, education and experience I did not. I really never cared what he made, I was more concerned with educating and gaining experience for myself so I could move up and get a better job. And I did.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If I don't like the way a company does business I have the ability to either deal with another company or just do w/o whatever that business offers. If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


That's the whole point here. If large corporations can influence government enough then the large corporations actually become government. You can walk away from doing business with a corporation, but you can't walk away from government.

That means that when defense contractors influence government, your tax dollars go to that corporation. We pay $4 billion/year to oil companies as exploration incentives, since congress doesn't think that $100/barrel is enough incentive for them. You can't walk away from paying taxes to oil companies and defense contractors. They've got you, because they ARE the government.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That's the whole point here. If large corporations can influence government enough then the large corporations actually become government. You can walk away from doing business with a corporation, but you can't walk away from government.
> 
> That means that when defense contractors influence government, your tax dollars go to that corporation. We pay $4 billion/year to oil companies as exploration incentives, since congress doesn't think that $100/barrel is enough incentive for them. You can't walk away from paying taxes to oil companies and defense contractors. They've got you, because they ARE the government.


Agreed for the most part and that is why we need LESS gov't, not more. Even if the gov't completely takes over a function, as Dems and yourself prefer with medical insurance, large corps will still dominate in the form of AARP, hospital owners, AMA, and whatever other lobbying unions emerge.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Agreed for the most part and that is why we need LESS gov't, not more.


My point wasn't that we need less government. My point was that we need to find a way to get large corporation influence out of government. That's what the Occupy movement is all about.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> My point wasn't that we need less government. My point was that we need to find a way to get large corporation influence out of government. That's what the Occupy movement is all about.


I know you didn't mean we need less gov't, but that is the logical conclusion which you and the occupiers fail to grasp. Here are the only ways to limit influence of the gov't that I can think of (feel free to add to my list if you are more creative than me):

1. have only perfect people in gov't and society who only want the best for America and are not subject to their own personal desires for money, power, and/or influence. Ain't gonna happen, people are people and a lot of people are less than perfect.

2. get corp influence out of gov't by shutting them up. Make it illegal for AAPR, the NRA, unions, the farm bureau, Planned Parenthood, the Dem and Repub parties, for profit corps, and the United Members of Homesteaders Today to speak to gov't officials or publicly advocate their positions. Hmmm...there's that pesky First Amendment in the way of that idea.

3. Conduct gov't in secret so that the public doesn't know what is being spent on what. I hope you can see the danger in that plan. 

So I'm assuming you didn't like any of those ideas so that brings us to a logical conclusion

4. make gov't smaller. eliminate some gov't programs, rules, and regulations till you get down to a critical core of Constitutional AND necessary items. If the gov't isn't spending money or regulating something, there is nothing to lobby.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> I know you didn't mean we need less gov't, but that is the logical conclusion which you and the occupiers fail to grasp. Here are the only ways to limit influence of the gov't that I can think of (feel free to add to my list if you are more creative than me):
> 
> 1. have only perfect people in gov't and society who only want the best for America and are not subject to their own personal desires for money, power, and/or influence. Ain't gonna happen, people are people and a lot of people are less than perfect.
> 
> ...


If you want to discuss this line of argument then you should really start your won thread, rather than pull this thread off topic.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

CesumPec said:


> I know you didn't mean we need less gov't, but that is the logical conclusion which you and the occupiers fail to grasp. Here are the only ways to limit influence of the gov't that I can think of (feel free to add to my list if you are more creative than me):
> 
> 1. have only perfect people in gov't and society who only want the best for America and are not subject to their own personal desires for money, power, and/or influence. Ain't gonna happen, people are people and a lot of people are less than perfect.
> 
> ...


Yep. Tried explaining something along these lines,to some friends on another forum who support OWS. They failed to grasp it. Doesnt matter how benevolent it starts if that much power is concentrated in one place it will eventually be corrupted. this is of course why this country started out a republic instead of a democracy. we forgot that as a nation though apparently, to our eventual great disappointment imo. 

this thread highlights what is failed about democracy very well actually. In this thread a whole stream of seemingly otherwise intelligent people ignored completely the entirely failed model of medicare and medicaid. the systems are simply not being funded in real time instead depend on debt and fture generations to pay. One generation voted itself much of the wealth of the next generation, and then convinced themselves this was ok. they use cognitive dissonance to ignore this, and instead gather around vague descriptions of how it is all funded so they dont have to face they are indeed robbing future generations. We arent talking chump change either, this amount is set to nearly double by 2030. (medicare and medicaid alone) 

to actually fund these things wed have to come up with 14% of our enitire nations GDP indefinitely. This is impossible. There will either be cuts soon before this unravels, or later when we have no choice and cuts must be much deeper... but cognitive dissonance although most to ignore this reality, because they want to get theirs.

Is it really different them powerful corporations that lobby to get their way, sometimes to the detriment of others? Of course it isnt. Which is why government powers should be limited and a REAL division of power maintained. Guess we have to learn this lesson the hard way...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

silverseeds said:


> to actually fund these things wed have to come up with 14% of our enitire nations GDP indefinitely. This is impossible. There will either be cuts soon before this unravels, or later when we have no choice and cuts must be much deeper...


Again, I don't want to humor this line of argument, since it's obviously a ploy to draw the thread off topic. But I will respond briefly to spending cuts.

We watched republicans show complete disregard for the deficit to get their hearts' desires for 8 years during the Bush administration, by starting two wars, cutting taxes, and creating Medicare Part D, none of which were funded by anything except additional debt. Now to pay for those blunders republicans are insisting that we reform Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare.

I see the republican austerity proposal to be nothing more than a ploy to have the elderly, sick, disabled, and poor fund republican programs while giving the wealthy a break. Remember, there is a flip-side to austerity; which is taxing enough to pay the bills.


----------



## silverseeds (Apr 28, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Remember, there is a flip-side to austerity; which is taxing enough to pay the bills.


We would have to nearly double all taxes to pay for our current spending levels and obligations as boomers retire. 14% of our gdp. Our income as a nation now stands at 14.9% of GDP. which would come with its own economic hit. you have yet to acknowledge this. (while talking about taking the thread off topic no less which I found telling-the cognitive dissonance I talked about in the other post) We cant tax it away. Waiting which you suggested to face this issue wont help, its growing FASTER then we can ever expect our economy to grow. (which you also didnt address) 

On top of this our dollars role as reserve currency which gives us a LOT of leeway is in question because our our issues. Now we even have western nations like germany already making moves away from the dollar. 

I agree with your assessment of republicans though. Their cuts arent even close to enough to change the problem. Clearly its political posturing of some type rather then trying to face the actual issues we face as a nation in this regard. You can cheer eat the rich all you like, there isnt enough of them. The current paradigm will end. Now its just a matter of whether or not it ends with wisdom where we correct our wrongs, or with ignorance as it is currently in greece and elsewhere. 

you want to point a finger at republicans though? interesting to note, that during bushes reign the dems realized full well the debts issues and the weight of it. As did obama. then once in power they made some of the same arguments the reps did when bush was spending up his storm.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada, I'm not trying to hijack the thread, I'm just trying to point out why you logically, if not consciously, desire to have smaller gov't and why big centrally controlled gov't programs like Medicare do not work. It hasn't worked in the Soviet Union, UK, France, China, or anywhere else it has been tried. Sweeden is the closest to a socialized success but I won't take the thread further off topic by explaining why their limited success is not sustainable or real. 

Other than that, what Silverseeds said :goodjob:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> big centrally controlled gov't programs like Medicare do not work.


Medicare has been working great for over 45 years. Just try to take Medicare away from a subscriber, even a conservative subscriber, and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> But in this case its Romneys history of imposing the pain on the little people that WILL BE the government you cant walk away from.


The government needs to impose some pain on people. People who are sucking on the government teat need to be weaned. And in their view that would be painful.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

beaglebiz said:


> Every place I have ever worked (two were huge corporations) the execs had the same health care deductions, same vacation and paid time off and everyone paid for their own lunch. We used to get free coffee, and when that ended my boss bought everyone a coffee every day, including one for himself. He made more money than I did, but he had responsibilities, education and experience I did not. I really never cared what he made, I was more concerned with educating and gaining experience for myself so I could move up and get a better job. And I did.


Its funny. Where I work the employee parking lot is empty within 15 min of quitting time. But there have been many, many times I've gone to check the main office building hours after 'quitting time' and find the evil bosses still working.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> If you want to discuss this line of argument then you should really start your won thread, rather than pull this thread off topic.


Now that I think about it...what is the topic of this thread? Why taxing the rich doesn't work. My small-gov-is-better is certainly more on topic than your gimme-stuff-that-others-have-to-pay-for.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's the whole point here. If large corporations can influence government enough then the large corporations actually become government. You can walk away from doing business with a corporation, but you can't walk away from government.
> 
> That means that when defense contractors influence government, your tax dollars go to that corporation. We pay $4 billion/year to oil companies as exploration incentives, since congress doesn't think that $100/barrel is enough incentive for them. You can't walk away from paying taxes to oil companies and defense contractors. They've got you, because they ARE the government.


As long as the corps are under the control of the government they will be looking for ways to control that control.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Medicare has been working great for over 45 years. Just try to take Medicare away from a subscriber, even a conservative subscriber, and you'll see what I mean.


Social Security worked great for a long time as well. But they are both projected to run out of funds over the next 10 - 30 years and there will not be enough workers to pay for all the retirees. The fact that the people who get the benefits don't want to give them up doesn't prove that it is a good program for America any more than do junkies who don't want to give up their heroin.


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> My point wasn't that we need less government. My point was that we need to find a way to get large corporation influence out of government. That's what the Occupy movement is all about.


The reason Occupy will never succeed is that it is only 1% screaming at the 98% who want to be come the other 1%.




CesumPec said:


> Social Security worked great for a long time as well. But they are both projected to run out of funds over the next 10 - 30 years and there will not be enough workers to pay for all the retirees. The fact that the people who get the benefits don't want to give them up doesn't prove that it is a good program for America any more than do junkies who don't want to give up their heroin.


Problem is people are living too long and expecting too much. When the system was designed the retirement age of 65 was 18 years longer than the average lifespan. That would be like having the retirement age be 95 now. If we up the retirement age to 95 there will be plenty of funds. If people keep working until they're 95 before retiring they'll be fine... Course, people who are near retirement are going to squawk at that idea!

Me, I don't expect I'll ever see SS nor do I have any intent to retire. Retirement is a modern idea of having years to decades of nothing to do. Better to keep busy. Idle hands and all that...

My kids suggest we have a cut off of people who are over X, say 59, get to use the existing 65 retirement and then it starts rising by three quarters of a year a year adjusting up to the life expectancy + 18 years like it used to be. In the mean time the rest of us had better make sure we have what we need as the government's already spending the future of our great grand children.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> Social Security worked great for a long time as well. But they are both projected to run out of funds over the next 10 - 30 years and there will not be enough workers to pay for all the retirees. The fact that the people who get the benefits don't want to give them up doesn't prove that it is a good program for America any more than do junkies who don't want to give up their heroin.


Minor adjustments in FICA contributions will fix it.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Minor adjustments in FICA contributions will fix it.


such as? let's have details


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> Which is better corporate republicans or fascist democrats? Would you rather have things controlled by people who are driven by profit and know if they don't keep consumers happy their profit will suffer or by people who think they know best and it doesn't matter what you think they will tell you what is best for you because they know best?
> 
> If I don't like the way a company does business I have the ability to either deal with another company or just do w/o whatever that business offers. If I don't like the way the government does business what can I do?


Most of this post isnt quite right.
For instance I HATE watching advertizing on vidios I have purchased.
But I CANT buy them with out it. No mater How much Im willing to pay they just dont sell them that way.
So the supposedly profit driven company is missing the profit they could have by providing me with what I want and they CERTAINLY are NOT keeping me or a lot of others happy. Those companies a ARE telling me to shut up and like it.
And No I dont have the option of dealing with others since they have a monopoly on their products You are right in that I could and do do without their products sometimes when the quality of the product isnt worth the aggravation of their advertizing. .


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

> He cited the example of those in charge buying pizzas for 5 bucks each and giving them to the workers.





> Nope it wasn't his money it was the employees, he had agreed to exchange their labor for money and Pizza.


I'm not sure where you came up with this conclusion but according to the original quote those in charge were buying the pizza. In no way does that say the employees had some contract where pizza was to be provided as a part of their pay. 

If the company was buying the pizza then who ever owned the company owned the money that was buying the pizza. The pizza may have been nice but when budgets need to be tightened pizza has to go. 
To further drive this point home, at the end of the year did the employees get a 1099 for the pizza or get the cost of the pizza added to their w-2's? If not then it wasnt their money and never was.


----------



## lurnin2farm (Jun 10, 2012)

Our founding fathers knew one thing for certain. The power to tax is the power to destroy. They made sure that your paycheck could not be taxed because if it was, your freedom was gone and you would be nothing more than a slave. What we have today is exactly what they tried to prevent. 

Bottom line is you can tax everyone in the country 100% and the Gov will manage to spend 200%. It doesn't work, never has worked and never will work. Just like paper money, Never in the history of mankind has a paper currency ever lasted. Its always ends up worthless. Our Dollar is no exception.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

watcher said:


> The government needs to impose some pain on people. People who are sucking on the government teat need to be weaned. And in their view that would be painful.


LOL But Im not worryed about the people sucking at the government teat.The people eating the Pizza were WORKERS! Im worried about the working folks that carry the nation on their back. 
Extra income taxes dont mean a thing to those that dont have a income.
Its those of us that work hard and earn a income that should be worried about Romneys reverse Robinhood tax veiws.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

beaglebiz said:


> I dont see how that is any different than anyother company that cuts benefits, increases out of pocket expenses for health insurance etc. I dont know of a company that isnt making cuts in order to become profitable and avoid bankruptcy. Nothing stays the same forever.





watcher said:


> Well your theory is shot to pieces. I'm FAR from rich and that's the way I see it. TANSTAAFL
> 
> 
> 
> ...





arabian knight said:


> And it is just that kind of thinking that unions have abused for years so companies have to make changes to survive.
> So what if you were hired and some things were cut out, Nothing in life is a guarantee and that included a job and what is at time of start of hire can sure change through the years.
> Companies have to make decisions like it not you and others are not owners. The companies can change anything they wish and anytime they wish. You know the door swings both ways.



Ok then you guys are good with changing the rules after hireing someone?
Since this is the government we are talking about I suppose that means you would Apply that thinking to government?


I can see the special intrest groups screaming now I just cant see that getting you reelected!


----------



## Silvercreek Farmer (Oct 13, 2005)

Just finished reading the entire thread, took me several hours, reading a few posts at a time. Sure sounds like my generation is screwed!


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

fantasymaker said:


> Ok then you guys are good with changing the rules after hireing someone?
> Since this is the government we are talking about I suppose that means you would Apply that thinking to government?
> 
> 
> I can see the special intrest groups screaming now I just cant see that getting you reelected!


we were talking about selling pizza to employees, not government
and yes. things change, and always have


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

beaglebiz said:


> we were talking about selling pizza to employees, not government
> and yes. things change, and always have


Ok which way do you want it? What Romney did in the past Applys to how he will do things in Government or not?
Whats good for private industry is good for Government or not?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

fantasymaker said:


> Ok which way do you want it? What Romney did in the past Applys to how he will do things in Government or not?
> Whats good for private industry is good for Government or not?


If it is an indication he will cut back on the overpaid, under worked, over privileged fed gov't workers, then you've finally gotten me excited about voting for Romney.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Naw it sounds more like he will cut out freash food to troops and firefighters. let them eat out of a can or better yet charge them enuogh to make a profit on it.:shrug:


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Silvercreek Farmer said:


> Just finished reading the entire thread, took me several hours, reading a few posts at a time. Sure sounds like my generation is screwed!


Never buy into that thought. Just because "a generation is this or that" does not mean that it has to have anything to do with you.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

Just why do some of you think that pizza was originally stated to be in the original pay package? Or that workers can never get pay cuts? They do, all the time, you know. If the workers even took the job in the first place because it included free pizza, which I seriously doubt.

Since it was Olympics, workers might very well have all been volunteers and workers might have agreed to split the cost of their pizza instead of getting a free lunch. Did anybody ask to see if that is what happened?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

highlands said:


> Never buy into that thought. Just because "a generation is this or that" does not mean that it has to have anything to do with you.


I did everything I was expected to do, along with the rest of my generation. I gave-up 15% of my pay during my entire working life. The question of my generation being screwed is a big topic to me.

I think a lot of people don't realize that we've already had this discussion, 30 years ago. Around 1980, we suddenly had the revelation that the FICA fund was being taken by congress, since the baby boomer generation were paying in a lot more than was going out. Reagan had a near-revolt on his hands, and the end if FICA was a real possibility.

In reaction to that mess, Reagan signed the Social Security Amendment act of 1983. That act required congress to issue treasury notes for any funds borrowed from FICA. In fact, when Reagan signed that act he made an "iron clad commitment" to our generation.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8]Ronald Reagan on Social Security - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

I know that I did my part to hold-up that bargain, so I expect that "iron clad" promise to be kept.


----------



## highlands (Jul 18, 2004)

Sure, I paid into the system too, still doing so, and so will our kids. But we do so knowing full well we will probably never see what we put in and that we need to save for ourselves. When I was a teenager and first saw the deduction I did the math. It was obvious the system was bound for failure. That was back in the 1970's. No surprise. Don't depend on what you know will fail. Don't be dependent on such promises.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

highlands said:


> Sure, I paid into the system too, still doing so, and so will our kids. But we do so knowing full well we will probably never see what we put in and that we need to save for ourselves. When I was a teenager and first saw the deduction I did the math. It was obvious the system was bound for failure. That was back in the 1970's. No surprise. Don't depend on what you know will fail. Don't be dependent on such promises.


You'll see all you paid in if you live to be the average life expectancy (around 79 right now). In fact, you'll not only see it but you'll even get it back indexed for inflation. The idea that the average person won't receive his FICA contributions back in Social Security payments is simply false.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I know that I did my part to hold-up that bargain, so I expect that "iron clad" promise to be kept.


well you put your money into Al Gore's lock box. Remember that? The trouble is that the Dems and Repubs conspired to cut a hole in that lock box and steal all the funds. The money is gone and expecting the gov't to steal from someone younger is disgusting and cowardly and ultimately is not going to work.

But not to worry, I think you will get your SSI payments and medicare part of your healthcare. The trouble is the money you receive is going to be so devalued you are still going to be hungry. And your medicare that doesn't cover all your healthcare costs will cover less and less making your co-insurance more and more expensive. 

Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but hyper inflation has always followed a greatly expanded money supply. Hyper inflation isn't going to do any of us any good except that all the debt the gov't has to repay will be done so with devalued dollars. All you folks who want a strong federal gov't just remember that when it comes time to decide whether poor people or the gov't benefit, the gov't will choose itself.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CesumPec said:


> But not to worry, I think you will get your SSI payments and medicare part of your healthcare. The trouble is the money you receive is going to be so devalued you are still going to be hungry. And your medicare that doesn't cover all your healthcare costs will cover less and less making your co-insurance more and more expensive.


By law, they have to make cost of living adjustments to Social Security. I'm not aware of any planned cuts to Medicare.

Just so you know, it's Social Security that I'm starting, not SSI. SSI is for the disabled. I'm not disabled, I'm just old.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Nevada said:


> You'll see all you paid in if you live to be the average life expectancy (around 79 right now). In fact, you'll not only see it but you'll even get it back indexed for inflation. The idea that the average person won't receive his FICA contributions back in Social Security payments is simply false.


 This same falsehood has been going around since I started working in the 1970s and its so easy to disprove but no one bothers. Each year you get a SS statement that shows how much you have paid in by year and on my last statement I have paid in about 79K and am due to draw a little over 1200 a month when I start drawing it in a few years. 5.5. years is all I need to draw it to get everything back and each and every worker paying into the SS system can do the same math with their own statements. 

I look at paying into SS as paying for my elderly relatives just like they paid for those that came before them but I sure wouldnt bet my retirement future on Social Security; it was never designed for that unless you just like living in poverty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> LOL But Im not worryed about the people sucking at the government teat.The people eating the Pizza were WORKERS!
> Im worried about the working folks that carry the nation on their back.
> Extra income taxes dont mean a thing to those that dont have a income.
> Its those of us that work hard and earn a income that should be worried about Romneys reverse Robinhood tax veiws.


You should be MUCH more worried about Obama et al plans to take your money and use it to buy votes to keep themselves in power.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

fantasymaker said:


> Ok then you guys are good with changing the rules after hireing someone?


Happens all the time. Would you not take a raise because its changing the rules after you were hired? If you have no problem with taking a benefit then why would you have a problem when things go against you?




fantasymaker said:


> Since this is the government we are talking about I suppose that means you would Apply that thinking to government?
> 
> I can see the special intrest groups screaming now I just cant see that getting you reelected!


Big difference. If I don't like the new rules a business sets I can stop doing business with it. If I don't like new rules the government sets all I can do is bend over and take it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Silvercreek Farmer said:


> Just finished reading the entire thread, took me several hours, reading a few posts at a time. Sure sounds like my generation is screwed!


Yep.

Added to give me enough characters so the program will post the msg.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I did everything I was expected to do, along with the rest of my generation. I gave-up 15% of my pay during my entire working life. The question of my generation being screwed is a big topic to me.
> 
> I think a lot of people don't realize that we've already had this discussion, 30 years ago. Around 1980, we suddenly had the revelation that the FICA fund was being taken by congress, since the baby boomer generation were paying in a lot more than was going out. Reagan had a near-revolt on his hands, and the end if FICA was a real possibility.
> 
> ...


What about those who entered into the agreement expecting to be able to retire at 65 but now can not retire until 67? Do they also have a breech of contract case?

But about you getting an agreement. I'm sure Bernie Madoff gave his investors in iron clad commitment as well. And we all know well that worked out.

As I have stated you sir have been screwed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

salmonslayer said:


> This same falsehood has been going around since I started working in the 1970s and its so easy to disprove but no one bothers. Each year you get a SS statement that shows how much you have paid in by year and on my last statement I have paid in about 79K and am due to draw a little over 1200 a month when I start drawing it in a few years. 5.5. years is all I need to draw it to get everything back and each and every worker paying into the SS system can do the same math with their own statements.
> 
> I look at paying into SS as paying for my elderly relatives just like they paid for those that came before them but I sure wouldnt bet my retirement future on Social Security; it was never designed for that unless you just like living in poverty.


You can't compare dollars to dollars, because the money you contributed years a go is worth a lot more today. When I started to contribute in the late 60s each dollar I contributed would be worth $7 today. The average present worth value of contributions will get you to right about the average life expectancy.


----------

