In article ,
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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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:

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.

Facts don't matter. Don't you get it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.