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.

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.

On Apr 11, 1:52*am, 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.

So, you are saying it will eventually be fine and good to tax the
middle class into oblivion? Figures.

wrote in message ...

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????

**************

~~ Snerk ~~
There would be more than that in any single one of the many professional
sports leagues in the US.

On 4/10/2011 8:57 PM, Harryk wrote:
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.

Ten points tops. And that's being generous, dreamer boy. What did your
education get you? If mom and dad didn't take care of you in their
wills, you would have squat now,except for what the benevolent Miss
Grear has bestowed upon you. Putting it simply, you are a fraud Harry.

In article , says...

On 4/10/2011 8:57 PM, Harryk wrote:
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.

Ten points tops. And that's being generous, dreamer boy. What did your
education get you? If mom and dad didn't take care of you in their
wills, you would have squat now,except for what the benevolent Miss
Grear has bestowed upon you. Putting it simply, you are a fraud Harry.

Even with Harrys lack of grades, his daddy bought him a place at some
mid west university of no consequence, so he wouldn't have to go to
Vietnam...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - We race for cheese!

On 10/04/2011 6:48 PM, Harryk wrote:
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.

You got the point!

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

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.

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

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.

In article ,
says...

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.

Don, Don, come quick!! You're very quick to point out grammatical errors
of others, take a look at Harry's bull**** above!!!!

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.