|
Obama endorses slavery
On 11/04/2011 9:25 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote: Canuck57 wrote: On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In , says... On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037. That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries. Some tens of billions were redeemed last year. Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption. Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended. Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks. Get the popcorn ready. Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced the debt. That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager 2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now. Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an asset. Never heard the SS fund called an asset. Never heard the government can't pay its debt. You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me. Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue stream in their total. They do it all the time. The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in virgin territory here. Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing ideologues. The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to pay that off in 26 years. The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a row. It was also never that big. That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption. Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing. And probably less in total. I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket. That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off and that would be bad. Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS. I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it. Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund. Mostly on the revenue side I expect. In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the debt to SS recipients. I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing. What are you going to do if the rich lease USA? Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But eligible for both. Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening! You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and beholding to a government check. Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied, is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC. Don't you mean worth more than you investment income? I am retired and save. Haven't applied for SS yet myself, I should. My investment income at present consists of profits from my partnership in a well-manager strip shopping center and a residential property. Except for a small block of shares, I am out of the stock market and have been for a long time. I have other income, but here I am simply talking about investment income. Missed a good ride in teh markets in the last few years. But I too admit I have been selling off back into cash. Looking at some south American investments.... Need to find a good learning Spanish DVD set. -- I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with fleabagger debt. |
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... wrote: Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas such as food inspections, and there are many others. Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal Service, right? |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:26:22 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:50:12 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. I am not sure how you enforce that. It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find some solutions. I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the really rich. They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic stimulus. So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our borders. Another non-responsive answer but if you do want to change the subject, yes I do think we should pull back our imperial adventures around the world. There is a whole lot of room to pull back in a $800 billion defense budget and a $15 billion foreign aid budget without becoming totally isolationist. Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) My response was very responsive. You want to go back to isolationism. That doesn't work. Feel free to try and blame your troubles on Dems. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:53:00 -0400, A_boaterer wrote:
In article , says... wrote: Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas such as food inspections, and there are many others. Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal Service, right? Both of which work reasonably well. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:30:45 -0400, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:52:29 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:00:35 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:08:00 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:17:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the young to the old. All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar too low on the wealthy. It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. It's not intended as a silver bullet. It's intended to get people who can certainly afford it to pay their fair share. It will go a long way toward helping the budget system, esp. in the long term. You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is about 10% of the whole tax cut. More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference even if you don't want to accept that. You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced". I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
In article ,
says... On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote: You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is about 10% of the whole tax cut. More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference even if you don't want to accept that. 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) You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced". I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it. Changing the subject again? I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government talk. The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T) The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of **** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and Frank... -- Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese! |
Obama endorses slavery
I_am_Tosk wrote:
The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of **** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and Frank... It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:13:28 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:16:16 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:01:40 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:49:42 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas such as food inspections, and there are many others. I only have to point to the failures in the government system. If "the system" worked as is, we would not be talking about salmonella and E-coli poisoning almost every week. The publicizing of these incidents and the bad press for the company involved is a far greater impact than any sanction the government is likely to impose. Companies try to keep their products safe because the market will punish them if they don't, not because of a government inspector sitting in an office somewhere updating his fantasy baseball team. So, all of a sudden you expect the gov't to be perfect. Wow. It must be imperfect because Obama is in office. No it has always been imperfect. Obama is just more of the same. I see little difference between any of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations. For that matter It has not really changed much since Eisenhower left. He's not even close to being "more of the same." Just because YOU don't see much difference does not make that a fact. Feel free to vote for Eisenhower's daughter. Oh wait, she doesn't want to have anything to do with GOP. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:10:40 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:15:29 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:26:22 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:50:12 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk wrote: wrote: It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people in the US it wouldn't balance the budget. Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the teahadists have in mind. The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore. You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is very happy to have them. Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line on page 2 of the 1040. They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code). Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS is taxable at your current rate. It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"? ,.. "Send it in". Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very wealthy to game the system. I am not sure how you enforce that. It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find some solutions. I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the really rich. They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic stimulus. So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our borders. Another non-responsive answer but if you do want to change the subject, yes I do think we should pull back our imperial adventures around the world. There is a whole lot of room to pull back in a $800 billion defense budget and a $15 billion foreign aid budget without becoming totally isolationist. Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic controllers. (although both could easily be privatized) My response was very responsive. You want to go back to isolationism. That doesn't work. Feel free to try and blame your troubles on Dems. Well we were talking about tax reform and you went off on your rant about isolationism. That is not responsive. It was very responsive. It's in line with all your previous comments. Too bad if you don't like me pointing that out. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:27:29 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote: You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is about 10% of the whole tax cut. More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference even if you don't want to accept that. 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) You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced". I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it. Changing the subject again? I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government talk. The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T) If Bush was a huge part of the problem, then Obama, oh and the House Republicans need to come to a reasonable agreement about how to fix the problem. Claiming that it all has to be fixed immediately is nonsense, right wing fear mongering. Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:33:55 -0400, Harryk
wrote: wrote: 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) Double the tax rates on those whose income is more than $500,000 a year, single or couple. Make all income except income used to open or build up an individual's own business, one that hires people, subject to the higher tax rates. Sounds reasonable to me. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:19:59 -0400, Harryk
wrote: I_am_Tosk wrote: The fact is, it is not Bushs fault at all. It's the congress that spends the money and Pelosi was in charge of that. I remember the lying sack of **** saying "gas prices will be my first issue if I am elected"... Among other things, depending on who she was talking to at the time. Either way, this recession is right at the feet of Pelosi, Obama, Kerry, and Frank... It's Stunatz Scotty, our own little Glenn Beck. I wonder if he's picking up Beck on the tiny transistor in his head? Sort of like Knuckles claiming he can't get Beck in Canada only in his case he thinks the voice he hears is Beck and he thinks its his own. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 22:00:42 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:43:33 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:27:29 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:18:34 -0700, wrote: You keep saying the richest 400 people. Do you really think there are only 400 people in the US who make more than $250K per year???? No that is about 5 million but that curve from 250k to the top 400 is a hockey stick. I would like to see them dump all of the Bush tax cuts but most people only want to see the taxes go up for people who make more than they do and assume that will fix the debt. Dumping the tax cuts are fine eventually. Not now. Not for the middle class. Dump them for those who make more than $250K. It's a good start, but you deny that. I only deny that limiting this to people who make more money than you will not make that much difference. In this case the difference is about 10% of the whole tax cut. More than me? Your figures are wrong. It will make a huge difference even if you don't want to accept that. 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) You continually claim that the argument being made is that it'll fix the debt. Nobody is making that claim. Another diversion and lack of facts. I hear it every day by guys like Bernie Sanders. They blame the whole budget crisis on the Bush tax cuts and use platitudes like "going back to Clinton tax rates when the budget was balanced". I agree we should go back to the Clinton tax rates and I have said that repeatedly. I also point out it won't make a dent in a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit. A huge percentage of the problems can be laid at the feet of the Bush admin. Sorry if you're not willing to admit it. Changing the subject again? I agree. Bush was a huge part of the problem but he had a congress that actually spent all of that money. If the president could actually spend money, we wouldn't have all of this shut down the government talk. The point is, even if there were no Bush tax cuts, we would still be well over a trillion in the hole.($1.13T) If Bush was a huge part of the problem, then Obama, oh and the House Republicans need to come to a reasonable agreement about how to fix the problem. Claiming that it all has to be fixed immediately is nonsense, right wing fear mongering. Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them. The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen hits if you google it. They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money. So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which is it? Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:31:03 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:12:02 -0700, wrote: Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them. The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen hits if you google it. They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money. So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which is it? I understand this is just a wild guess but you think everything they say is gospel and I was talking to you. Wow... you just flip-flopped from quoting the CBO to claiming they're full of it. Please show me where I've ever said "everything they say" is gospel. Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats. I am just repeating what the people who know more than both of us are saying. They did back it up with numbers. I also understand a lot of it is just speculation but some of that speculation is also based on the value of the dollar. Which people? Rush? I'd say listen to NPR, but they're just commies with a secret mission to destroy this country, right? |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:49:01 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:01:49 -0700, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 23:31:03 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:12:02 -0700, wrote: Even assuming your number of $70B a year is right (who knows, since you continually make up facts). The right wing just went down to the wire about social programs and $1B. That's so adult of them. The $700b over 10 years is straight from CBO (the cost of the tax cut on $250k people) and it is widely reported., You will get a dozen hits if you google it. They certainly have to start fixing this problem pretty soon. You do understand, most of the $4 gas is because the world has devalued the dollar. If we don't get a handle on this debt that will only get worse. Why would anyone loan us money at a percent or two when the money we will be paying them back with is losing value faster than that. You can continue in your blissful denial but remember where you heard it. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point and the only solution from both sides of the aisle is borrow more money. So, now you believe in the CBO. Previously that wasn't the case. Which is it? I understand this is just a wild guess but you think everything they say is gospel and I was talking to you. Wow... you just flip-flopped from quoting the CBO to claiming they're full of it. Please show me where I've ever said "everything they say" is gospel. You are just spinning now. Do you think the $700b over 10 years is wrong? Prove it. It is the most optimistic number the CBO has. Personally I think the money we would get is lower than that. I wouldn't know. You love the CBO until you hate it. Most of the $4 gas is uncertainty driven. Sorry if that doesn't mesh with your view of Obama and/or the Democrats. I am just repeating what the people who know more than both of us are saying. They did back it up with numbers. I also understand a lot of it is just speculation but some of that speculation is also based on the value of the dollar. Which people? Rush? I'd say listen to NPR, but they're just commies with a secret mission to destroy this country, right? Actually the federal reserve. They peg the dollar to a broad index of currencies and the dollar has dropped 5% in 4 months. Since that includes the Euro that is also in trouble it is actually worse than that, You really need to compare it to China, India and the emerging markets who are competing for oil with us on the world market. China can easily throw a lot of dollars at oil. They have ours. Since the speculators may really buying future contracts for oil that is still be in the ground, the value of the currency has a whole lot to do with how high the prices get bid up. That is the speculative part of oil prices. The only bright side of that is they frequently guess wrong and oil prices can crash. Do you feel lucky? Yes, the dollar dropping is causing some problems. It's not the only thing and prices aren't as high as they've been. Nice try. |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
|
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
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? |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
More stupid shit from D'Plume
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
Obama endorses slavery
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com