On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:33:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.




I'd support $160K and above. I would not support less than about $80K.

Always just a little more than YOU make huh?

Quite a bit less actually. But, you don't want to be reasonable about
taxes. Just raise them. Doesn't matter who suffers.


It should be across the board. Adding a few hundred dollars to
anyone's tax bill is not going to crush the economy.
Just let it reset to the Clinton Era rates. You folks seem to think
times were never better than then. (that was actually more like $2000
for me last year when I compared what I paid to what happened if I ran
my taxes with the 1996 book).
I still would support that rate.
Anything else is short sighted. You keep saying the real problem is 30
years away and that it will take a long time to turn this around but
you always have an excuse why we shouldn't start. That is like the
drug addict who is going to stop tomorrow.

No, it shouldn't. That's just your right-wing nonsense. The middle
class don't need more taxes, at least not right now.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:02:30 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 10:29:25 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:16:26 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:33:43 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:10:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


OK I am wrong but the FACTS are the tax on $250k will get us 70
billion a year, assuming they actually pay it (no tax avoidance
schemes)
The tax on the $250K is $300 billion a year (the total tax cut costs
$3.7T over 10 years) so it is 18.9%, not 10%

So when you look at the whole thing, assuming we went back to the
Clinton levels, it would only cover about 24.6% of the deficit.
$370B vs a $1.5T deficit)


I don't know where this $250k idea came from.
Probably because those who proposed it make less than $250k.
But $160k puts you in the top 5%.
Taxes should come up for everybody.
Even the lowest bracket should get a 1% bump so everybody is in the
game.
Here's all you want know about the possibilities for erasing the debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc...TheDeficit.pdf
I didn't bother to look whether this assumes the "Bush tax cuts"
expired. No doubt it also didn't anticipate Obama cutting the SS tax.
The income tax revenue table only gives totals gain from 1% increase for
everybody.
In reality, higher incomes should increase by multiple points to make a
dent as far as revenue.
There are plenty of other revenue enhancers in there.
VAT is a big hitter.
And plenty of spending cuts, which are equally important.
As a % of GDP revenues are historically low, spending high.
So it adds ups to a fracas of special interests and bought pols.
Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach, and couldn't get the needed 14
of 18 commission vote to bring it to Congress.
Opposition was bipartisan.
Paul Ryan took a partisan approach, and should be spat upon.
It's coming out now how Ryan's plan is pure bull**** and will actually
increase the deficit while stripping the middle class and poor bare.
Wonder where that increased deficit money is going?
Socialism for the wealthy.
Any 2 sensible adults with basic math skills could come up with a
balanced solution that would erase the debt in 10 years or less.
Simpson-Bowles were gentle on both revenues and spending in an attempt
to get 14 of the 18 goofball pols to agree.
Didn't work.
Gentle as they were, they broke too many precious eggs.
I really think this will all come out badly because we have a broken
political system and a country full of spoiled deadbeats.
Rich and poor alike.
BTW, I saw Simpson on Hardball today and he said something about
Medicare that I didn't see in his report.
He basically said the real solution to Medicare was to go after the
doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and hospitals that are
raping the government.
Sometimes I don't like Simpson. This time I did.




I'd support $160K and above. I would not support less than about $80K.

Always just a little more than YOU make huh?

Quite a bit less actually. But, you don't want to be reasonable about
taxes. Just raise them. Doesn't matter who suffers.

Was it oppressive when Clinton had the higher rate. You folks keep
saying that was the times of prosperity. I am only agreeing.

Were taxes oppressive during an economic boom? No. Would they be so
now for the middle class which is struggling, yes. I'm glad you're
agreeing.



It should be across the board. Adding a few hundred dollars to
anyone's tax bill is not going to crush the economy.
Just let it reset to the Clinton Era rates. You folks seem to think
times were never better than then. (that was actually more like $2000
for me last year when I compared what I paid to what happened if I ran
my taxes with the 1996 book).
I still would support that rate.
Anything else is short sighted. You keep saying the real problem is 30
years away and that it will take a long time to turn this around but
you always have an excuse why we shouldn't start. That is like the
drug addict who is going to stop tomorrow.

No, it shouldn't. That's just your right-wing nonsense. The middle
class don't need more taxes, at least not right now.


So you don't really want to balance the budget then. Everyone should
pay. 40 million families don't pay a dime now.

No, not everyone NOW. You can claim all you want about families not
paying taxes, that doesn't actually support any reasonable argument
unless you're talking about families making more then $250K. Saying
the same thing over and over doesn't make it a fact.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.

That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?



Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."

When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.


All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.

What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.

wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.
That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?



Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."
When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.


All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.
What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.


What's really sad is how our tax dollars are wasted, instead of doing
good for the citizens. We should be slashing the military budget and
hitting corporations that export jobs with very special taxes, and, if
they head offshore, levy taxes on the goods and services they want to
sell here.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.

That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?


You really want to keep spinning this.
Debt is debt. Default is default.
The gov has always spent SS revenues and issued Trust Fund Treasuries.
And every penny is accounted for.
US Savings bonds and T-Bills are also government debt.
Why don't you claim T-Bills, T-Notes, T-Bonds, TIPS, E and I Savings
Bonds aren't worth the paper they're written on?
Because YOU have an right-wing idealogical bone to pick with SS.
It doesn't change a thing.
You're starting to sound like Canuck.
Here, eat this
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7
"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust
funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government.
The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The
special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings
Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."


Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."

When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.


And I say it's not. Because it's not means-tested.
So there. nannanananannana


All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.

What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k.

Uh, no. You have to have an AGI (married, joint) of $44k before 85% of
SS benefits are subjected to whatever your marginal tax rate is.
If your AGI is between $34k and $44k less than 85% is subject to the
marginal rate tax.
Under $34k not taxed.
It's lunacy to say it can be taxed away.
I guess even when folks collect that evil SS they're still going to
whine about taxes if they have the income that gets SS taxed.
Usually the more money they got coming in, the more they whine.
Kinda funny.

Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

I thought you were all for taxes and increased revenue.
Are you saying SS benefits shouldn't be subject to taxation?
Is that what you want?

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:44:51 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7
"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust
funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government.
The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The
special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings
Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."

... and the full faith and credit of the government is exactly what is
at stake here. SS has never run a deficit before so we are in virgin
territory here.

It's not virgin territory.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf
The SS Trust Fund itself was in the red for many years up to 1984.
Right now it's flush with over $2T.

Things were great when SS generated billions of extra money for the
government to spend. The open question is how they will pay it back
now that we are spending 166% of revenue..

That's a spending and general revunue problem.
Got nothing to do with SS.


And I say it's not. Because it's not means-tested.
So there. nannanananannana

Of course it is means tested right now. They taxed away almost 3
percent of mine this year based on my "means" and that number will
surely go up in the future.


That's not means testing. It's the progressive income tax system.
You were taxed on income, not means.
You could be a billionaire drawing SS and if you play your cards right
none of your SS will be taxed.


Uh, no. You have to have an AGI (married, joint) of $44k before 85% of
SS benefits are subjected to whatever your marginal tax rate is.
If your AGI is between $34k and $44k less than 85% is subject to the
marginal rate tax.
Under $34k not taxed.
It's lunacy to say it can be taxed away.

From SSA.GOV
You will have to pay federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if
you file a federal tax return as an individual and your total income
is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to
pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than
$32,000.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...urity-benefits


Right. I was mistaken about the $34k. It's $32k.
Doesn't change anything else I said. It's simple income tax at marginal
rates. And for 85% of the SS income to be taxed at marginal rates your
AGI has to be $44k.

Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

I thought you were all for taxes and increased revenue.
Are you saying SS benefits shouldn't be subject to taxation?
Is that what you want?

I am just saying SS will be taxed at even a higher rate, virtually
eliminating it for anyone who has other sources of income.
Write that down and look at it in 10 years to see if I am right.

SS benefits are income, pure and simple. It will never be taxed except
as income along with other income.
If marginal rates go up and your SS income is subject to the rate, you
pay.
You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:55:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:12:47 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.

That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?



Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."

When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.


All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.

What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.

I just did my taxes and filled put that work sheet. Try it before you
say stupid ****. It is in your 1040 book.

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

wrote:

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.

I just did my taxes and filled put that work sheet. Try it before you
say stupid ****. It is in your 1040 book.

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:34:10 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:26:54 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:55:00 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:12:47 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:58:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:11:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

You still don't get SS, because THERE IS NO SS DEFICIT.
SS is $2T in the black! SS taxpayers have already kicked it in.
No matter what your - right wing in this case - ideology, you can't get
around that. The SS Trust Fund is accounted for in black and white.
Everybody knows that.
If not they can go to the SS website to get educated.
That's a U.S. government debt like any other and has to come from
general revenue.

That would be true if the government had not spent every dime of that
money. Right now the $2T that SS calls an asset, the treasury calls a
debt. We can't even cover 60% of what we spend with our revenue. How
in the hell will the government ever pay back those SS bonds?



Only a right winger would call a paid for old age pension system
"welfare."

When it becomes a means tested benefit, having no relation to what you
paid in, it is welfare.


All other 1st world countries call their version of SS
"old age pension."
You're welcome to call it what you want because we can freely speak
here. But most Americans who worked all their lives and now collect SS
will just say "**** you" if you tell them they're collecting welfare.

What are they going to say when the government simply taxes away their
whole benefit because they make too much money. They already tax 85%
of SS if you make more than $32k. Bear in mind your FICA money was
after tax money so that is already double taxation and you ain't seen
nothing yet.

According to you.. someone who apparently has trouble with the facts.

I just did my taxes and filled put that work sheet. Try it before you
say stupid ****. It is in your 1040 book.

Which has minimal or nothing to do with the solvency of Social
Security.

The point is they are chipping away at the promise (we were told SS
would never be taxed), to make SS more solvent but, as you say, the
effect is minimal. I bet there are more promises that will be made
"inoperative" as this problem continues.


SS benefits are not taxed until you reach the threshold. Then you're
taxed. Why is that a problem for you?

There is no "chipping away," unless you mean the Republicans in the
House and Senate.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:30:31 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 20:01:18 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:44:51 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n7
"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust
funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government.
The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The
special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings
Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."

... and the full faith and credit of the government is exactly what is
at stake here. SS has never run a deficit before so we are in virgin
territory here.

It's not virgin territory.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf
The SS Trust Fund itself was in the red for many years up to 1984.
Right now it's flush with over $2T.

up we have a whole bucket full of IOUs, promising the government will
pay out the benefits. They just have not said where the money will
come from. Let me say this again slowly

WE ARE SPENDING 166% OF REVENUE.

There is no money left to pay out that $2T

Things were great when SS generated billions of extra money for the
government to spend. The open question is how they will pay it back
now that we are spending 166% of revenue..

That's a spending and general revunue problem.
Got nothing to do with SS.

Where do you think the SS money will come from? It has to come from
general revenue, I suppose we could just print more money but that is
what Wiemar Germany did. Their currency collapsed.



I am just saying SS will be taxed at even a higher rate, virtually
eliminating it for anyone who has other sources of income.
Write that down and look at it in 10 years to see if I am right.

SS benefits are income, pure and simple. It will never be taxed except
as income along with other income.
If marginal rates go up and your SS income is subject to the rate, you
pay.

I was only guessing that they would means test SS through the tax
code, simply because that is the easiest way but I do bet they will be
means testing it.


You're just crying about taxes, when a while ago you wanted them raised.

I still do.
I was just talking about how they are already chipping away at the SS
promise. It was always said that SS would never be taxed. Now it is,
based on your means.

Saying things over and over don't make them facts.