On 09/04/2011 7:58 PM, L G wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 09/04/2011 9:30 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:05:04 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 01:05:50 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:56:54 -0700, wrote:

You've got plenty of paranoia about something that might or might not
happen in 30 years, but something that's in your face is no big deal.

The things I am worried about are happening right now. Social Security
and Medicare are in deficit today.
The job flight from the country is happening right now.
The fact that we are spending 166% of our revenue is a problem today.

I agree the congress is not addressing any of these problems
seriously, using this crisis to advance ideological agendas but I also
do not take the theater that seriously.


And their "deficit" is temporary. For example, the primary reason for
the SS deficit is low unemployment, and that will change in the next
year or so, then it's solvent for another 30 years.

You have not been paying attention have you. The projection was always
that SS would be upside down in 2017, then 16 then 15 and the later
projections were 2012-13.
Then the recession made that 2010 they HOPED they might get a year or
two of surplus but the Obama payroll tax cut torpedoed that. It will
never see a surplus again. Medicare has been upside down for quite a
while with no end in sight.


Yet, you're just fine with making that situation worse, not paying
people for weeks if not months on end. How many people will default on
their houses? How many won't be able to pay their insurance or feed
their kids, pay for college, etc., etc.

That has never happened. If these people are living so close to the
edge that they will fail of their pay check is held up a few days, it
is not a question of if they will fail, only when. What are these
military guys going to do when the war is over and the Army gives then
an "early out" like happened after Vietnam?

You and Harry keep saying the DoD budget is too high but the DoD is a
jobs program. Virtually any cut in the budget will cost someone a job.


You're just fine with all that, but zonkers paranoid about something
that may or may not happen in 30 years.

The theater is deadly serious for some people. You don't care about
them, apparently.

Since nobody in the government has ever lost a dime's pay in any of
the shut downs, no I don't really care. Some come to work, if they
really do anything important for a living, some stay home but they all
get paid.,

Which is why it isn't working. Congress needs to just issue a 3 month
temporary no-pay layoff.
While that will never happen, it would save a ton of money. Their

pensions and health care benefits are also out of control.

If congress had common sense, they would just lay off 90% of the
government for 3 months and no pay. This way the understand the
seriousness.

--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here.

That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the
best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other
countries.

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.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 9:27 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400,
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.

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.

And what do you do with people like me when I move my $$$ out?

You don't live in this country, s.f.b.

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400,
wrote:

Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here.

That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the
best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other
countries.


Where there is a will there is a way.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 11:29 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400,
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.
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.

Funny. So funny. Dream on. You are so low IQ it isn't funny.

Really? I'd bet my IQ is significantly higher than yours. You write as
if you never completed the 8th grade. Plus, you're bat**** crazy *and* a
racist. And you think gold is an investment.

You are well-matched to Snotty Ingerfool, one of the other morons here.

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????

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.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:18:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 10/04/2011 10:35 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400,
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.

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".

One good one to remove is mortgage deductibility. I say this as if far
more people had far more equity in their homes, so many would not be
susceptible to foreclosure and cash flow problems.

For example, a home owner who had it paid off doesn't really care much
about current prices and is a strictly long haul owner. A 10% down type
and it doesn't work out, well, flip the keys to the bank and then while
to Obama for another mortgage.

Second, make it harder to do bankruptcy. Bet a huge number don't pay
because they think they can get away with it. Dope, cars, women --
whatever is more important. It should be against the law to loan money
to welshers for 12 year or more. A penalty for being a welsher.

Big problem I see in the US right now is in attracting new buyers. With
civic and state debt and tax grabs, I might want a taxation guarantee
for $100k off the price. Why buy other peoples problems as it isn't
just the foundation to worry about? Some countries actually offer this
so prices don't collapse. Maybe time states and cities did too.

No, you're just stupid.

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.