PDA

View Full Version : Taxes, bad?



Soflasnapper
01-18-2011, 10:56 PM
Let's review the modern (post-WW II) history of taxes.

The '50s saw a robust economy, and the top marginal tax rate was 93%.

The '60s saw a robust economy, and the top marginal tax rate was 70%. After LBJ laid on something like a 10% surtax to help pay for the Vietnam War expenses, Nixon came in under LBJ's last fiscal year (i.e., this surtax in place), and '69 saw the last balanced budget for almost 30 years.

After Reagan's gigantic cut of the personal rates and corporate rates, unemployment rose from the 7%s to eventually 10.8%, in a horrific recession. In 1982, just one year after the tax cuts, Reagan reversed all the corporate tax cuts in what was then the largest tax hike ever. The stock market bull market then began, and Reagan's further 14 tax hikes over his last 7 years saw a robust economy (although the national debt was tripled at the same time). This, despite the NEWEST largest tax hike in history, over a 50% increase in the SS payroll tax (from 4.2% to 6.2%).

Then, in the '90s, after GHW Bush's marginal tax hike, AND WJC's further marginal tax rate hike (both characterized in their day as 'the largest tax hikes ever,' although that wasn't true-- Reagan's two largest hikes were larger in real, inflation-adjusted terms), we saw a great economy, an actual surplus in Clinton's last three years, the paying down of the national debt by about $500 billion, and the projection of eliminating the ENTIRE national debt in only 10 years (if we'd kept the same policy structure in place, including pay-go).

(Deficit hawks, are you paying attention?)

For the new millenium, we ditched the pay-go policy and massively cut taxes (twice). How did that work out?

We fully doubled the national debt instead of paying it completely off. We experienced zero job growth in the private sector over 10 years. The median wage remained the same over a 10 year period for the first time ever. The CBO said the '09 budget that Obama inherited had $1.2 trillion in red ink before Obama did a single thing. Job losses were running at 750,000 a month and growing, and gdp declined over 6% in the last quarter of '08, totally unprecedented and 50% worse than blue chip forecasters had estimated. (They knew it was bad, but not how bad it was.)

What conclusions can be drawn from the above recited history of tax rates? Perhaps that higher taxes aren't all bad?

LWW
01-19-2011, 02:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review the modern (post-WW II) history of taxes.

The '50s saw a robust economy, and the top marginal tax rate was 93%.

The '60s saw a robust economy, and the top marginal tax rate was 70%. </div></div>

Both are true ony if much factual gymnastics are used.

Although the top tax rates were high, one must consider that the tax code allowed for virtually anything to be used as a business deduction.

The percent of taxation as a percentage of GDP was essentially staic over many decades.

What has led to the deficit is massive spending that we didn't have then, This spending pulls hundreds of billions of dollars out of the credit markets. This chokes off economic expansion in favor of state expansion.

The gist of your point is jejeune.

Whether you knew it and repeated it with intent, or whether it was spoon fed to you and you didn't question it because it came from the regime's back bench and was the lie you wanted to hear ... that is the only thing in question.

LWW

Qtec
01-19-2011, 02:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Both are true ony if much factual gymnastics are used.</div></div>

BS. The middle class was better off then than they are now, that's a fact.

Ever since 1970 the MC have lost ground and the top 10% have gained.

Q

LWW
01-19-2011, 03:16 AM
I remember the last time you linked to something which proved you wrong.

Have you ... probably not ... ever learned to look before you leap?

LWW

cushioncrawler
01-19-2011, 03:35 AM
I dont know what the problem iz -- krappynomix science iz well advanced nowadays -- and we kan all thank god that there are praps 30 NoNobel Memorial Prize for Krappynomix Science recipients around to help fix any financial question.
In fakt all 30 will giv u a different answer -- and all ovem are korrekt -- koz no one kan ever proov anything in krappynomix wrong -- thats the beauty of krappynomix.
Rolls in -- rolls in -- my god how the money rolls in -- rolls in.
Rolls in -- rolls in -- my god how the money rolls in.
mac.

Qtec
01-19-2011, 05:27 AM
As long as the money goes round, everybody profits, everybody is happy.



Q

LWW
01-19-2011, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an actual surplus in Clinton's last three years</div></div>

Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

LWW

Qtec
01-19-2011, 06:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an actual surplus in Clinton's last three years</div></div>

Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

LWW </div></div>

LMAO

Soflasnapper.........are you getting this? LOL

Q

LWW
01-19-2011, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">an actual surplus in Clinton's last three years</div></div>

Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

LWW </div></div>

LMAO

Soflasnapper.........are you getting this? LOL

Q </div></div>

Are you claiming that the US federal debt did not rise each and every year of the Clinton regime?

Think carefully ... you've shot off several propellers on this one already.

LWW &lt;--- Waiting for Snoopy to run away and hide. Again.

Sev
01-19-2011, 06:54 AM
Conclusion.
The government is the problem not the solution.

The regulatory and taxation gymnastics that they have performed over the past 50 years has seen our manufacturing base collapse and created a service orientated nation.

eg8r
01-19-2011, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What conclusions can be drawn from the above recited history of tax rates? Perhaps that higher taxes aren't all bad? </div></div>Ah yes, the use of statistics to prove whatever you have predetermined is the right answer. If taxes were the only variable, or even the main one, then you might be on to something. We both know it is not and that you are not interested in discussing ways to fix our current problem.

So what do you think about education. In the 50s and 60s the US was tops in the world. Then we removed prayer from schools and starting throwing more money at it than ever. Guess what happened, it tanked. Perhaps allowing prayer back into schools and budgeting them correctly and effectively wouldn't be all bad?

That is the beauty of numbers. Anyone with a little bit of thought can use them to manipulate non-thinkers. It is what politicians do every time they speak on their stump. It is what economists do every time they give their projections and then miserably fall short.

Our high debt rate has less to do with the money coming in as it does with the money going out. Both sides of the equation have to equal out for balance. If we are going to start increasing taxes but never slow down the spending then we will continue in the same direction we are already headed but maybe we just go a little bit slower. Quit trying to steal someone else's money to pay your bills.


eg8r

Soflasnapper
01-19-2011, 10:39 AM
LWW, I am impressed that you actually offer a substantive rebuttal. It's not entirely correct, of course, but it's an improvement over what I've seen.

Both are true on[l]y if much factual gymnastics are used.


No, they are both true, without qualification. Pure fact.

Although the top tax rates were high, one must consider that the tax code allowed for virtually anything to be used as a business deduction.

You are actually somewhat correct in this statement! (sign of the end times, I've heard!) It is entirely true that the EFFECTIVE rate was lower than the nominal stated top rate, because of deductions and allowed tax shelter dodges. However, business deductions were available for BUSINESSES. Private parties like highly paid actors (e.g., Reagan, believe it or not at one time, who provided testimony to the Congress on this point) got right up into the 93% bracket, and many quit working for the year at that point (as said Reagan of himself and others) rather than gain a mere 7 cents out of each additional dollar earned. You can look up the difference between the nominal top rate and the effective top rate, and in the 93% top bracket days, the effective top rate was still in the mid-60%s, as I recall.

The percent of taxation as a percentage of GDP was essentially sta[t]ic over many decades.


Not starting from the '50s, it wasn't. In the '50s, it was around a 17% bite of gdp in total federal government taxation (prior to the laying on of LBJ's Medicare program and tax of 1.45% on payroll on both the employer and the employee = 2.9%). It did stabilize around a 19% of gdp range, for a while, until higher inflation kicked in, and then 'bracket creep' prevailed because the brackets weren't indexed to inflation and just having enough income growth to make the same 'real' income (considering inflation) meant that you had more income at the higher rates and paid higher taxes without actually making any more 'real' money.

Reagan's tax cuts both indexed the brackets to inflation, stopping the unwarranted extra money to the government (this was sensible), AND dropped the government take as a percentage of gdp. After Reagan's later 14 tax increases, and the Bush and Clinton tax rate hikes, the Clinton years saw the LARGEST take of the gdp ever (over 20%), AND the lowest government spending as a share of gdp (hence the surpluses, the difference between the largest tax receipts as a percentage of gdp and the lowest spending as a gdp share). George W's massive tax decreases LOWERED the government taxation share compared to gdp back down to the 17% level of the '50s, even considering the 2.9% Medicare tax. So, there was a stable range for a bit of this time after it first rose from the '50s level, then Reagan substantially lowered it before he and the next two guys substantially raised it, before W way lowered it. Stable? Not exactly, and especially not in the cutting and raising and re-cutting phases.

What has led to the deficit is massive spending that we didn't have then, This spending pulls hundreds of billions of dollars out of the credit markets. This chokes off economic expansion in favor of state expansion.

Well, you are right that Reagan and W massively raised spending, but they also substantially cut tax income to the government. So much so that actual nominal tax receipts FELL in absolute terms, more in inflation-adjusted terms, a couple of years each. Prior to the large Reagan tax cuts, the deficit never got above $75 billion a year (and was that high only once, in Carter's brief 2 quarter recession).

Ever since, no deficit came in below $150 billion, double the prior record level deficit, until 16 tax hikes later.

The gist of your point is jejeune.

Using the high-fallutin' words is more impressive when you spell them correctly, LOL!

Whether you knew it and repeated it with intent, or whether it was spoon fed to you and you didn't question it because it came from the regime's back bench and was the lie you wanted to hear ... that is the only thing in question.

Tu quoque?

Chopstick
01-19-2011, 10:44 AM
I do appreciate your posts. They are far superior to the cut and paste drive bys and mindless pattern rants that are all to common here. On the issue of taxes, yes they are bad. Taxes and the national debt are a chicken and egg situation. Any discussion of taxes must be considered against the backdrop of government spending.

It has been said that tax rates under the Clinton administration were higher but Clinton cut government spending more than any other president in history. In fact he cut government spending more than the next four highest spending cutting presidents combined. It is government spending, not tax rates that affect the economic health of the country. Government spending itself is apparently a useless exercise. How many billions have we spent on the Department of Energy? It was created to end our dependence on foreign oil. What have they produced? Nothing. In thirty years they have produced nothing even though reasonable solutions exist right now that could solve this problem. Why are we paying them?

Consider the recent pork orgy where the democrats gorged themselves on the public treasury. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. We were told that there were shovel ready projects to rebuild the infrastructure of the country and that is what the money would be used for. That sounds like a good idea. One of the main reasons that our country is not competitive on a global basis is because we built our infrastructure first and other countries later. Now our infrastructure is old and outdated and theirs is still relatively new. So, how much money from the Pelosi porkfest was actually spent on rebuilding the country's infrastructure? None. In fact, after it was all done, a congressman, I did not catch his name, came on TV saying we need a bill to rebuild the nations highways and bridges. What? And Obama himself comes on TV saying that there is no such thing as a shovel ready project. What again?

Five trillion in spending and absolutely nothing to show for it and they admitted to our faces that they lied to us in the first place. In my own view, any politician that opens their mouth about taxes, spending, or increasing the national debt, should be impeached immediately and investigated for civil and criminal prosecution.

Of course I could be wrong but that is how I feel about it at this time. I am always ready to listen to reasonable arguments to the contrary. I do not care about the left or the right. I honestly don't think there is any difference between the two in the current political environment.

pooltchr
01-19-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm not sure why you differentiate between taxes on businesses and taxes on individuals. Businesses do not pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes. Any so-called tax on any business is going to be paid by either the business owner, shareholders, or customers, all of which are individuals.
Business taxes are a cost of doing business that must be offset by either reducing stock dividents, or increasing consumer prices. (Let's face it, business owners are the ones who control who pays, and are very unlikely to personally accept the additional tax burdens.)

So what is any different between taxes applied to businesses and taxes applied to individuals?

Steve

sack316
01-19-2011, 11:53 AM
Sofla, I first want to say that it has been refreshing to read your posts. It's a breath of fresh air to read the original thought and effort you put into them!

As far as this thread, I second Ed's statement on how this viewpoint would be quite accurate if taxes were the only variable involved. using one example
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The '50s saw a robust economy, and the top marginal tax rate was 93%. </div></div>

Alright, sure. But what about all of this stuff too? (http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html) (linked to a simplistic assessment of the 50's economy in the interest of saving space).

It just seems a rather simplistic view to see "tax rate=higher" and "economy=good" and make that sole direct connection. I make pretty decent money on some late nights out drinking at dive bars. Can I say "well I must play better wasted"? Factually, no. Though it seems that way it's more likely because I'm playing drunken bar rats whose skill on the tables is not nearly that of the serious players in the pool halls I'd be playing at other times.

Now back to the content. The big debate seems to be an either or on cut spending vs. higher taxes. Where we are now, it's most likely BOTH will be necessary at some point. But again using the 1950's example, what would a 93% top marginal tax rate do? In theory, it would bring in buku bucks to the government. In practice, it would likely drive out businesses and jobs elsewhere, even more so than we already do. It would be counterproductive to the goal. Obviously the 93% figure is a far more extreme example than we would see, though.

Sack

Soflasnapper
01-19-2011, 12:17 PM
Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

It's more true than lie, although I should have said 2 years of a <u>balanced</u> budget, and the last year as an actual surplus year. A little sloppy, but basically true nonetheless.

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

The publicly held debt (which is financed by government borrowing through issuing Treasury bonds sold to the domestic and world markets, taking money otherwise available for the economy out of circulation for government purposes) did NOT rise in ANY of the last three budget years of Clinton, although the TOTAL government debt did. The difference between what you say and my statement is what happened to the part of the debt the government owes itself, due to the peculiarities of how the SS surplus works. (Accounting, much?)

Here's how that works, and believe me, this information is worth the price of admission here all by itself, because nearly no one understands it and you may now join the select few! (Careful, your head may explode-- but I kid.)

Work with me here. Assume the government spends $1 trillion, receives tax receipts of $900 billion, and SS has $100 billion left over from its dedicated payroll tax after paying all benefits due this (fiscal) year. By LAW, any extra money left as surplus in the SS account MUST be put into special Treasury bonds bearing 6% interest on their face. The government has a $100 billion deficit, but it's covered internally, through net income to the government from the SS tax. The government does not need to go to the markets for financing, as its own surplus in the SS account is available and the same size as its shortfall of income to spending. So no money is diverted from the private markets by needing to borrow publicly, and no increase in (publicly traded and financed) debt has occurred. BUT the government now owes SS the $100 billion back, with interest accruing each year until the bonds are redeemed.

This situation is conventionally known as a 'balanced [unified] budget,' which is what happened each of the 1st 2 years of Clinton's last three budget years. Note, although the government budget was 'in balance,' and it took in as much overall as it spent, not borrowing from any outside source, still the (total) debt went up $100 billion anyway.

In Clinton's last year, there was an ACTUAL surplus, not counting the SS surplus to fill in any gap. Using the last set of numbers to contrast, this would mean (regular) tax receipt income of $1 trillion, expenditures of something under $1 trillion, but STILL the SS surplus of $100 billion gets added to the debt because it is turned into government bonds.

What was done with the extra money received from the swap of those bonds, since none of it was necessary to fund government expenditures? Clinton paid off a part of the publicly held debt equaling the same amount as the net SS surplus.

So, now, in this case, although the debt owed to SS did go up by $100 billion, the debt owed to the public went down by $100 billion, which SHOULD have then meant no increase in total debt at all.

As you RIGHTLY point out, the total national debt DID go up even in that last year, so why was that, if there was allegedly (and really was) a surplus?

Again, accounting. Remember, the SS bonds bear interest, WHICH WE DO NOT PAY IN CASH. We pay the interest by issuing additional special Treasury bonds in the amount of the interest. 6% of $1 trillion dollars, if that were the total sum of monies owed to the SS fund, is $60 billion dollars. (And the money owed to SS is more like $2.5 trillion, = $150 billion at a 6% rate.)

So, even in the case of an undeniable surplus, with all SS net surplus used to pay off the equivalent of publicly held debt, the issuing of additional bonds to cover what is a very large accruing although not yet due interest payment ends up making the total national debt larger by a 12-figure sum.

It might be argued then that REALLY, there is no surplus, but that argument requires that the meaning of the word be changed. There is a true surplus on a cash accounting basis, just not on an accrual basis. And it is the cash accounting basis (for the fiscal year Oct 1-Sept 30) on which the surplus or deficit is defined.

One might argue that the nation should use GAAP standards, which require accrual accounting, but we don't, and most individuals would be shocked at what an accrual accounting would claim their financial condition is. It would be unrecognizable to them, and the nation's books are stated on a current cash basis and always have been. (My company had to restate its financials by GAAP and accrual methods, and quite shockingly, we were shown to have phantom income received last year somehow booked into this year, and real income this year deferred to next year, which is totally different from what we show on our corporate tax return.)

LWW
01-19-2011, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, I am impressed that you actually offer a substantive rebuttal. It's not entirely correct, of course, but it's an improvement over what I've seen.

Both are true on[l]y if much factual gymnastics are used.


No, they are both true, without qualification. Pure fact.

Although the top tax rates were high, one must consider that the tax code allowed for virtually anything to be used as a business deduction.

You are actually somewhat correct in this statement! (sign of the end times, I've heard!) It is entirely true that the EFFECTIVE rate was lower than the nominal stated top rate, because of deductions and allowed tax shelter dodges. However, business deductions were available for BUSINESSES. Private parties like highly paid actors (e.g., Reagan, believe it or not at one time, who provided testimony to the Congress on this point) got right up into the 93% bracket, and many quit working for the year at that point (as said Reagan of himself and others) rather than gain a mere 7 cents out of each additional dollar earned. You can look up the difference between the nominal top rate and the effective top rate, and in the 93% top bracket days, the effective top rate was still in the mid-60%s, as I recall.</div></div>

So ... your argument is now that the top rate was essentially never achieved because:

A - Allowable deductions far exceeded what is now available.

B - The top marginal rate was de facto never really achieved because it was confiscatory and counterproductive.

That's close enough for agreement.

As to what an individual deducted ... sorry. A business suit even used to be deductible.

The 93% rate was a sop used to gin up class warfare.

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 03:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LWW, I am impressed that you actually offer a substantive rebuttal. It's not entirely correct, of course, but it's an improvement over what I've seen.</div></div>

Then you need to read more.

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 03:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The percent of taxation as a percentage of GDP was essentially sta[t]ic over many decades.


Not blah blah blah blah </div></div>

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 16.1% and 19% (Korean War.) in the 1950's.

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 17.6% and 19.7% (Viet Nam War.) in the 1960's.

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 17.3% and 19% (Korean War.) in the 1970's.

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 17.3% and 19.6% in the 1980's.

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 17.5% and 20.6% (Korean War.) in the 1990's.

According to OMB the fed's income, as a percentage of GDP, was between 16.1% and 14.8% in the 00's.

OH DEAR! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/)

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, you are right that Reagan and W massively raised spending, but they also substantially cut tax income to the government. So much so that actual nominal tax receipts FELL in absolute terms, more in inflation-adjusted terms, a couple of years each. Prior to the large Reagan tax cuts, the deficit never got above $75 billion a year (and was that high only once, in Carter's brief 2 quarter recession). </div></div>

So close yet so far.

The Reagan and Bush ... and JFK ... era cuts flooded the treasury with money.

The problem is that congress spent all of it ... and some.

The fact that the economy grew faster than revenue grew ... even though revenue grew faster than inflation ... is the real root cause of the anti capitalist left's hatred of tax cuts. Even though lower marginal rates increase revenue to fund their pet projects ... it de-powers the state and puts more Americans into self reliant mode as opposed to serf mode.

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 04:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

It's more true than lie, although I should have said 2 years of a <u>balanced</u> budget, and the last year as an actual surplus year. A little sloppy, but basically true nonetheless.

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

The publicly blah blah blah blah</div></div>

The difference between your statement and mine is that I realize:

A - There was no actual surplus.

B - The SS system has been plundered for the last half century by statists who wished to take the national pension funding and dump it into the general fund so that their incompetence and treachery was somewhat hidden in the shadows.

C - If a private company did the same thing, people would go to prison ... and rightfully so.

D - SS is a Ponzi scheme and nothing more.

E - Now that these prior notes from the state to the state are coming due the choices are quickly narrowing down to default or monetize the debt.

while you have your thumbs gleefully in your ears refusing to hear the obvious truth.

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do appreciate your posts. They are far superior to the cut and paste drive bys and mindless pattern rants that are all to common here. </div></div>

He does give it the old college try.

LWW

LWW
01-19-2011, 04:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure why you differentiate between taxes on businesses and taxes on individuals.

Steve </div></div>

Good point.

Confiscatory tax rates have led to more incorporation than anything else in America.

LWW

Soflasnapper
01-19-2011, 06:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not sure why you differentiate between taxes on businesses and taxes on individuals. Businesses do not pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes. Any so-called tax on any business is going to be paid by either the business owner, shareholders, or customers, all of which are individuals.
Business taxes are a cost of doing business that must be offset by either reducing stock dividents, or increasing consumer prices. (Let's face it, business owners are the ones who control who pays, and are very unlikely to personally accept the additional tax burdens.)

So what is any different between taxes applied to businesses and taxes applied to individuals?

Steve </div></div>

LWW referenced how much lower the effective rate was from the stated nominal rate, to imply that even given the superhigh 93% or still frightening 70% top bracket, everybody paid a far lower effective rate, because of business deductions.

The narrow point I was making was that there were few deductions to a person to get a reduced effective tax rate lower than the nominal tax rate, whereas companies did have that ability.

Yes, the individual at the time could deduct consumer debt (credit card) interest (of which there was very little, btw-- that whole credit card thing hadn't taken off much, with mostly CHARGE cards like Diners or Amex). They could income average if they had a windfall in income one year that was atypical.

But mainly they could get into more or less abusive tax shelter concepts like oil drilling leases, limited partnerships, etc., which could offer 2-1, 3-1, even up to 10-1 or greater deduction for what was put into them. These were often not really business opportunities at all, so the money put into them was lost, but were more than gotten back in the value of the deduction.

This kind of sheltering had a larger ticket price than an average person could afford, so it was mainly limited to very wealthy persons. Mom and Pop in the '50s had little defense against the top bracket via taking everything as a business deduction

Soflasnapper
01-19-2011, 06:31 PM
A - There was no actual surplus.

That's a defensible view, but only if you change what that word means as a term of art in conventional use. If you are the Queen of Hearts in Alice through the LookingGlass, you can do that. Hereabouts, not so much.

B - The SS system has been plundered for the last half century by statists who wished to take the national pension funding and dump it into the general fund so that their incompetence and treachery was somewhat hidden in the shadows.

Yes, the Reagan/Greenspan Commission (notice I didn't say Bush???) hugely bilked workers and employers with massively hiked SS payroll rates and ceilings to which the rates applied, to recover the several hundred billion dollar annual deficits they caused by giving away the store to the upper brackets. You're onto something here-- keep going.

C - If a private company did the same thing, people would go to prison ... and rightfully so.


If a private company put contributions to a pension fund into Treasuries, they might be criticized for being overly cautious and conservative, but it would be far from a criminal act. It would actually be highly responsible, if unimaginative.

D - SS is a Ponzi scheme and nothing more.

Not at all. A Ponzi scheme HIDES the fact that current people are being paid by future entrants. SS admitted it up front, and that transgenerational transfer nature of the thing was built in and disclosed up front. (Or else after it was announced, it would have taken the workforce's lifetime before anyone was paid anything. In fact, immediately, current workers began paying for retirees, with the promise that when they reached retirement age, they would be paid by the younger workers in turn.)

E - Now that these prior notes from the state to the state are coming due the choices are quickly narrowing down to default or monetize the debt.

Hardly. The most obvious choice, and how we've always done these things, is to refinance, swapping debt for new debt. That is, we'd make the intergovernmental debt part of the publicly held debt, 1 for 1. The other choices are a) raise the ceiling of income to which SS tax applies to all earned income, as the Medicare tax now applies, b) trim COLA formulas to actual COLA only instead of income increases, c) slightly raise the retirement age over a phased in period, or d) do a little of all of these. Frankly, the approx. $750 billion in revenues lost over 2 years by extending the BOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH tax rates is about exactly the size of the actuarial shortfall.

While you have your thumbs gleefully in your ears refusing to hear the obvious truth.

Truth to you is obviously highly subjective.

pooltchr
01-19-2011, 07:00 PM
Legal and legitimate tax deductions are abundant and available to almost every taxpayer.
Let's say you are an avid pool player. You can pay your membership to the UPA and become a "professional" pool player. At that point, you can deduct the cost of equipment, cue repair, travel to tournaments, entry fees, subscriptions to trade magazines, league fees and any other costs associated with playing pool. Even the membership you paid to the UPA to become a professional is deductable! Of course, you would also report all of your winnings when you file your taxes, but it's probably still less than your expenses.

If your better half enjoys scrapbooking, all she has to do is incorporate herself, teach a couple of classes on the subject, and she is now a professional scrapbooking consultant. All of those supplies she has been buying become a tax deduction.

There is no law that says your business must be profitable...just get the proper permits and licenses, and pretty much anyone can have the advantages offered to any business.

I'm not suggesting anyone lie or commit tax fraud, but if you take the time to learn the basic tax laws, you can take advantage of them the same way all those evil corporations do.

Steve

Sev
01-19-2011, 07:03 PM
Again the root of all the problems is the government incessantly tweaking things they have no real world knowledge about.

If the government was fiscally responcible in the first place the country as a hole would not be in the predicament it currently is.

The states are behind 2.5 trillion in pension funds.
Soc Sec is behind multiple trillions as well.
The baby boomers retiring are going to collapse it due shallow worker/retiree ratio.
Regulation and taxation has caused massive outsourcing in all sectors.
Medicare and Medicaid for all intents and purposes are bankrupt.
The US postal system is running at a massive deficit.
Unfunded mandates are bankrupting states.
40+% of the population pays no taxes.
Expenditures on Welfare are through the roof.
Massive failing social programs such as the War on Poverty and Great Society have sucked trillions out of tax payers pockets.
Over seas expenditures both humanitarian and military are through the roof.

So for the most wealthy country on the planet where the hell is all the money???

Its out on credit.

LWW
01-20-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A - There was no actual surplus.

That's a defensible view, but only if you change what that word means as a term of art in conventional use. If you are the Queen of Hearts in Alice through the LookingGlass, you can do that. Hereabouts, not so much.
[i]
</div></div>

Sorry. There was no actual surplus. Had there been, the federal debt would not have risen every year.

You are clutching to a myth like a drowning man clings to a reed. You are believing bogus accounting tricks because it perpetuates the myth you wish to believe in.

Repeating the myth doesn't make it true, believing the myth doesn't make it true. By definition a myth is a mythical thing.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
B - The SS system has been plundered for the last half century by statists who wished to take the national pension funding and dump it into the general fund so that their incompetence and treachery was somewhat hidden in the shadows.[/i]

Yes, the Reagan/Greenspan Commission (notice I didn't say Bush???) hugely bilked workers and employers with massively hiked SS payroll rates and ceilings to which the rates applied, to recover the several hundred billion dollar annual deficits they caused by giving away the store to the upper brackets. You're onto something here-- keep going.

</div></div>

Not even close to correct. The plundering began in 1960 Yes, every regime since has gone along to get along.

The Reagan era tax cuts increased the portion of the total tax bill paid by the rich ... as did the Bush era cuts ... because it allowed people to avoid the confiscatory 70%top marginal rates. IOW ... it rewarded the productive in society for being productive. And, yes I know, that is something the left despises/

As to the deficits ... the military had to be rebuilt after the debacle inflicted upon it by James Earl Carter. Beyond that, the POTUS is not a king. Congress screwed the pooch on the budget.

As to the SS increases ... the system was broke then. The "FIX" was known at the time to be temporary and gave the state another 25 years or so to make the hard choices and phase them in. As with nearly all things entrusted to the state ... they kicked it down the road until there was no more road to kick it down. Now, we are again at a state of technical insolvency in the SS system.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C - If a private company did the same thing, people would go to prison ... and rightfully so.


If a private company put contributions to a pension fund into Treasuries, they might be criticized for being overly cautious and conservative, but it would be far from a criminal act. It would actually be highly responsible, if unimaginative.
</div></div>

Not what I meant, and you knew that. Had a company taken the pension fund and dumped it into general revenue in order to make the books look better ... which is what your beloved state did ... they would have been jailed, and rightfully so.

But, you already knew that ... it just doesn't fit your agenda so you pull a typical Alinsky trick and attempt to assign an argument to me that I never made so you can "DEFEAT" it.

You are starting to shoot off propellers at a rate comparable to Snoopy's.

LWW

Qtec
01-20-2011, 04:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

It's more true than lie, although I should have said 2 years of a <u>balanced</u> budget, and the last year as an actual surplus year. A little sloppy, but basically true nonetheless.

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

The publicly blah blah blah blah</div></div>

The difference between your statement and mine is that I realize:

A - <u>There was no actual surplus.</u>


LWW </div></div>


Soflasnapper just explained it to you. He also explained why the debt went up even though there was a surplus.


http://bethemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deficits.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[54] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"<u>the surplus</u> is not the government’s money. <u>The surplus </u>is the people’s money."</span> </div></div>


.......but you know better.


Q

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">D - SS is a Ponzi scheme and nothing more.

Not at all. A Ponzi scheme HIDES the fact that current people are being paid by future entrants. SS admitted it up front, and that transgenerational transfer nature of the thing was built in and disclosed up front. (Or else after it was announced, it would have taken the workforce's lifetime before anyone was paid anything. In fact, immediately, current workers began paying for retirees, with the promise that when they reached retirement age, they would be paid by the younger workers in turn.)

</div></div>

Sorry ... but the plan was sold to the public as an insurance program where each worker paid premiums into the system and that those premiums were to be held in a private individual account.

The state still promoted the program in this manner until the 1960's when the surplus money began being dumped into the general fund.

Further, the SS system guarantees the worker absolutely nothing in it's current form.

The SCOTUS in 1960 ... Flemming vs Nestor ... ruled that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right" and "A person covered by the Social Security Act has not such a right in old-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608-611. (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits are based on his contractual premium payments. Pp. 608-610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Congress probably had in mind when it expressly reserved the right to alter, amend or repeal any provision of the Act. Pp. 610-611. 3. Section 202 (n) of the Act cannot be condemned as so lacking in rational justification as to offend due process."

Hence it is a Ponzi scheme. It is sold as a guarantee of benefit when in reality no such guarantee of benefit actually exists nor is it enforceable.

The SS system has for decades been used as a fund with a huge surplus which instead of being invested properly ... as an insurance company would do ... to cover future debts, has been used to buy votes through ever expanding and unfunded programs.

Once the US public realizes how badly they have been had ... remember we still have a second amendment unlike the disarmed Euros ... the issues arising in France/Greece/UK may well look quite punk.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/BrochureUSSocialSecurity1961Pages1and4FormOAAN7006 .jpg

FACTS! They are such stubborn things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor)

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E - Now that these prior notes from the state to the state are coming due the choices are quickly narrowing down to default or monetize the debt.

Hardly. The most obvious choice, and how we've always done these things, is to refinance, swapping debt for new debt. That is, we'd make the intergovernmental debt part of the publicly held debt, 1 for 1. <span style="color: #3333FF">Simply delusional answer. We are $14,000,000,000,000.00 in acknowledged debt ... adding in the unfunded MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SS debt which is currently off the books so to speak we are somewhere in the range of $60,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. If you think that can be sold on the open market without crushing the world economy you are simply believing in financial unicorns. To continue the madness will result in monetization of the debt which will result in the US $ becoming the next Zimbabwe $. We have only been able to avoid this to date because we have the most guns and are therefor the world's reserve currency. The rapacious diet of the US welfare state has broken us ... it has broken the Japanese ... and it is about to break the Chinese.</span> The other choices are a) raise the ceiling of income to which SS tax applies to all earned income, as the Medicare tax now applies, <span style="color: #3333FF">Politically impossible in today's climate, but a good idea.</span> b) trim COLA formulas to actual COLA only instead of income increases, <span style="color: #3333FF">Ditto.</span> c) slightly raise the retirement age over a phased in period, or d) do a little of all of these. Frankly, the approx. $750 billion in revenues lost over 2 years by extending the BOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH tax rates is about exactly the size of the actuarial shortfall. <span style="color: #3333FF">Back to believing in mythology I see.</span></div></div>

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you so blindly accept such lies as if they were true?

It's more true than lie, although I should have said 2 years of a <u>balanced</u> budget, and the last year as an actual surplus year. A little sloppy, but basically true nonetheless.

If that statement is true, then explain to us why the national debt rose each and every year of the Clinton regime?

The publicly blah blah blah blah</div></div>

The difference between your statement and mine is that I realize:

A - <u>There was no actual surplus.</u>


LWW </div></div>


Soflasnapper just explained it to you. He also explained why the debt went up even though there was a surplus.


http://bethemedia.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deficits.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Facing opposition in Congress, Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the U.S. in 2001 to increase public support for his plan for a $1.35 trillion tax cut program—one of the largest tax cuts in U.S. history.[54] Bush argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers, saying <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"<u>the surplus</u> is not the government’s money. <u>The surplus </u>is the people’s money."</span> </div></div>

CBO numbers are junk because they are not based on reality.

These numbers were based on the idea that the borrowed SS funds never nbe paid back ... IOW not borrowed at all.

Now ... if there was a surplus, why did the debt rise every year?

LWW
.......but you know better.


Q </div></div>

LWW
01-20-2011, 04:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Soflasnapper just explained it to you. He also explained why the debt went up even though there was a surplus.

Q </div></div>

And that is the same delusional "LIE TO MYSELF!" logic used by credit junkies worldwide.

If one pays off one's Mastercard by taking a cash advance onisa by taking a cash advance on their discover and then pay their Discover by taking a cash advance on their American Express and then paying their American Express by taking a pay day advance loan and then declaring they are running a surplus because they borrowed the money from their own future earnings ... well, they would be operating under the same delusion.

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:03 AM
When you start looking at the size of the numbers its dam depressing.

LWW
01-20-2011, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you start looking at the size of the numbers its dam depressing. </div></div>

Not if you are an O-cultist.

Observe:

A - Last (R) congress's deficit = <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160,000,000,000.00</span></span>.

B - Current (D) congress's deficit = <span style='font-family: Courier New'><span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1.5T</span></span>.

She how much larger the republichicken deficit was in comparison with the glorious numbers turned in by dear leader and the last politburo?

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 07:22 AM
Nice play.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 01:18 PM
There is no law that says your business must be profitable...just get the proper permits and licenses, and pretty much anyone can have the advantages offered to any business.

Steve, actually, there is such a law or regulation.

One cannot deduct for what are hobby expenses. You have to eventually show you make a profit, or you lose the ability to deduct expenses.

It's true, you don't have to show a profit in year one or year two, and plenty of real companies may show a couple of years' losses at the beginning.

But somewhere into a couple years into it, if you still haven't shown a profit, any deductibility ends, and they may even back charge you for the prior deductions (not sure of that last).

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E - Now that these prior notes from the state to the state are coming due the choices are quickly narrowing down to default or monetize the debt.

Hardly. The most obvious choice, and how we've always done these things, is to refinance, swapping debt for new debt. That is, we'd make the intergovernmental debt part of the publicly held debt, 1 for 1. <span style="color: #3333FF">Simply delusional answer. We are $14,000,000,000,000.00 in acknowledged debt ... adding in the unfunded MEDICARE/MEDICAID/SS debt which is currently off the books so to speak we are somewhere in the range of $60,000,000,000,000.00 in debt. If you think that can be sold on the open market without crushing the world economy you are simply believing in financial unicorns. To continue the madness will result in monetization of the debt which will result in the US $ becoming the next Zimbabwe $. We have only been able to avoid this to date because we have the most guns and are therefor the world's reserve currency. The rapacious diet of the US welfare state has broken us ... it has broken the Japanese ... and it is about to break the Chinese.</span> The other choices are a) raise the ceiling of income to which SS tax applies to all earned income, as the Medicare tax now applies, <span style="color: #3333FF">Politically impossible in today's climate, but a good idea.</span> b) trim COLA formulas to actual COLA only instead of income increases, <span style="color: #3333FF">Ditto.</span> c) slightly raise the retirement age over a phased in period, or d) do a little of all of these. Frankly, the approx. $750 billion in revenues lost over 2 years by extending the BOOOOOOSSSSSHHHH tax rates is about exactly the size of the actuarial shortfall. <span style="color: #3333FF">Back to believing in mythology I see.</span></div></div>

LWW </div></div>

The $14 trillion in stated debt INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OWED TO THE SS SYSTEM. Swapping it out of intergovernmental accounts to the public side doesn't change this number.

The huge number you cite of $60 trillion is a 75-year worst case projection containing many critical assumptions, which if slightly changed, make for drastically different and lower numbers.

And, btw, CBO now scores that number at $40 trillion, that much of reduction coming from Obamacare that people want to repeal for fiscal reasons????

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 01:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you start looking at the size of the numbers its dam depressing. </div></div>

Not if you are an O-cultist.

Observe:

A - Last (R) congress's deficit = <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>$160,000,000,000.00</span></span>.

B - Current (D) congress's deficit = <span style='font-family: Courier New'><span style='font-size: 8pt'>$1.5T</span></span>.

She how much larger the republichicken deficit was in comparison with the glorious numbers turned in by dear leader and the last politburo?

LWW </div></div>

Oh my God, you are such a HACK!!!

You are citing the '08 deficit number, which EXCLUDED all the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars entirely. (They were passed as 'emergency' spending, which isn't put into the 'official' deficit number, but still add into the debt since they are wholly borrowed and not paid for.)

That is a minor misrepresentation compared to ignoring that the '09 budget was a Bush budget as well, so THAT was the last deficit attributable to Bush's reign of [t]error.

Nice job of omitting the relevant fact that the TARP spending, $700+ billion in additional deficit added to '09's deficit number, was entirely a Bush/Hank Paulsen authored policy.

Between adding in the war spending, and the TARP layout, CBO said the Bush budget for '09 was $1.2 trillion in the red before Obama passed anything, which is 7.5 x the phony '08 number you cite as the last deficit for which the GOP is responsible.

Do you believe your own misrepresentations, lying to yourself, or are you a sophist spewing talking points you know are false? I don't know which would be worse.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 01:56 PM
This is in reference to your citation of SS puff-ads dating to 1961, which you claim show how SS was marketed in Ponzi scheme fashion. (I don't quote it, as that graphic is huge.)

There is a problem with your claim. How it was 'sold' some 25 years after it's creation is NOT how it was discussed when it was originally passed (which is to say, how it was originally 'sold.')

Payments were made under SS within a short time of passage. Early recipients who either hadn't contributed, or had contributed literally pennies, immediately and subsequently received much more than they'd ever put in, so in no way could that result be imagined to be any kind of 'insurance plan.'

Here are some examples to show what really happened right after SS was passed. (Yes, it's from Wiki, but it's accurate. If you disagree, show where it's mistaken.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Payroll taxes were first collected in 1937, also the year in which the first benefits were paid, namely the lump-sum death benefit paid to 53,236 beneficiaries.[citation needed]

The first reported Social Security payment was to Ernest Ackerman, who retired only one day after Social Security began. Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.[24]

The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[25]</div></div>

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C - If a private company did the same thing, people would go to prison ... and rightfully so.


If a private company put contributions to a pension fund into Treasuries, they might be criticized for being overly cautious and conservative, but it would be far from a criminal act. It would actually be highly responsible, if unimaginative.
</div></div>

Not what I meant, and you knew that. Had a company taken the pension fund and dumped it into general revenue in order to make the books look better ... which is what your beloved state did ... they would have been jailed, and rightfully so.

But, you already knew that ... it just doesn't fit your agenda so you pull a typical Alinsky trick and attempt to assign an argument to me that I never made so you can "DEFEAT" it.

You are starting to shoot off propellers at a rate comparable to Snoopy's.

LWW </div></div>

What, you left out the Cloward and Piven reference? You're slipping up on your randomly generated talking points!

Plenty of companies require that their 401k matching contributions be taken in company stock.

And private companies have also been allowed to plunder their retirement funds to use that money elsewhere, short-changing their lawful contracted obligations. It isn't illegal, because the law was changed under Reagan.

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The $14 trillion in stated debt INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OWED TO THE SS SYSTEM. Swapping it out of intergovernmental accounts to the public side doesn't change this number.

</div></div>

Completely irrelevant, and evidence that either you have been duped by the regime or are culpable in the fraud.

The amount owed to the SS fund by the fed only includes the money borrowed to date.

IOW ... the funds the fed owes to pay SS/MEDICARE/MEDICAID starting with next month's checks are not counted on the government's books as a debt because they haven't yet issued the check.

Your argument is analogous to someone saying "My payment is $1,000.00 a month for 360 months on the house I just bought, but since I don't have a payment due yet I'm debt free!"

Put bluntly ... the fed cannot issue checks next month withpout borrowing money to pay it and they can't pay what has already been borrowed without printing it.

Whether by naivete' or willful deception ... you are defending the indefensible.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Plenty of companies require that their 401k matching contributions be taken in company stock.</div></div>

Completely irrelevant because:|

A - The individual has an option to participate, or not.

B - The company is generally matching an employee contribution, meaning de facto the stock is being sold at a severely reduced price compared to the market.

C - The employee can always cash out if they smell trouble.

D - The company cannot print the money to pay it's debt.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And private companies have also been allowed to plunder their retirement funds to use that money elsewhere, short-changing their lawful contracted obligations. It isn't illegal, because the law was changed under Reagan. </div></div>

Got a link to support that?

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Oh my God, you are such a HACK!!!

You are citing the '08 deficit number, which EXCLUDED all the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars entirely. </div></div>

You and Snoopy should invest in propellor stock.

The democrooks took congress in January, 2007 and passed the 2008 budget.

Thanks for acknowledging that it was far worse than advertised.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That is a minor misrepresentation compared to ignoring that the '09 budget was a Bush budget as well, so THAT was the last deficit attributable to Bush's reign of [t]error.</div></div>

Again with the deceit from you. I never stated Bush wasn't culpable in the mess. IN fact, I predicted shortly after the 2006 election that a Faustian deal would be cut where the democrooks would wail and gnash their collectivist teeth to the media about the war ... and then sign off on it, and in exchange Bush would sign off on the fiscal madness that they desired.

I can see that both parties participated ... you obviously can't.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nice job of omitting the relevant fact that the TARP spending, $700+ billion in additional deficit added to '09's deficit number, was entirely a Bush/Hank Paulsen authored policy.</div></div>

I omitted nothing, and I've always blamed Bush for signing off on TARP.

Now, would you like to review and discuss how the 2 parties voted cumulatively on TARP? On the auto bailouts? On the supposed stimulus plan?

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Between adding in the war spending, and the TARP layout, CBO said the Bush budget for '09 was $1.2 trillion in the red before Obama passed anything, which is 7.5 x the phony '08 number you cite as the last deficit for which the GOP is responsible. </div></div>

The POTUS does not set the actual budget, they can only submit a guideline to the congress.

Congress sets the actual spending.

The POTUS can only approve it as a whole or reject it as a whole.

Lamely, as the left always does, blaming the budget passed by a democratic majority in both houses on the republicans which overwhelmingly voted against it simply because the POTUS signed it is ... at best ... dead wrong, and at worst willfully dishonest.

Furthermore, absolving president Obama because of the "MESS" he supposedly inherited while ignoring that he authored, voted for and pushed that very same mess is a completely intellectually bankrupt argument.

LWW

LWW
01-20-2011, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is in reference to your citation of SS puff-ads dating to 1961, which you claim show how SS was marketed in Ponzi scheme fashion. (I don't quote it, as that graphic is huge.)

There is a problem with your claim. How it was 'sold' some 25 years after it's creation is NOT how it was discussed when it was originally passed (which is to say, how it was originally 'sold.')

Payments were made under SS within a short time of passage. Early recipients who either hadn't contributed, or had contributed literally pennies, immediately and subsequently received much more than they'd ever put in, so in no way could that result be imagined to be any kind of 'insurance plan.'

Here are some examples to show what really happened right after SS was passed. (Yes, it's from Wiki, but it's accurate. If you disagree, show where it's mistaken.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Payroll taxes were first collected in 1937, also the year in which the first benefits were paid, namely the lump-sum death benefit paid to 53,236 beneficiaries.[citation needed]

The first reported Social Security payment was to Ernest Ackerman, who retired only one day after Social Security began. Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.[24]

The first monthly payment was issued on January 31, 1940 to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her first check was for $22.54. After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92.[25]</div></div> </div></div>

I love how you think you have proven me wrong by agreeing with me.

This is very similar to Obamacare which was sold to the public as a plan with unlimited coverage, no deductibles, and at an average cost of $2,500.00 per year per family less than before.

LWW

Sev
01-20-2011, 06:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Between adding in the war spending, and the TARP layout, CBO said the Bush budget for '09 was $1.2 trillion in the red before Obama passed anything, which is 7.5 x the phony '08 number you cite as the last deficit for which the GOP is responsible. </div></div>

The POTUS does not set the actual budget, they can only submit a guideline to the congress.

Congress sets the actual spending.

The POTUS can only approve it as a whole or reject it as a whole.

Lamely, as the left always does, blaming the budget passed by a democratic majority in both houses on the republicans which overwhelmingly voted against it simply because the POTUS signed it is ... at best ... dead wrong, and at worst willfully dishonest.

Furthermore, absolving president Obama because of the "MESS" he supposedly inherited while ignoring that he authored, voted for and pushed that very same mess is a completely intellectually bankrupt argument.

LWW </div></div>

Kind of like Global warming. If it shows its global warming. If it rains its global warming.

Soflasnapper
01-20-2011, 10:29 PM
The POTUS does not set the actual budget, they can only submit a guideline to the congress.

True.

Congress sets the actual spending.

True.

The POTUS can only approve it as a whole or reject it as a whole.

Ambiguous, and probably false if I understand your meaning.

Typically, the Congress passes maybe 12 or so spending bills, each covering spending in certain areas-- a defense spending bill, an Agriculture subsidy bill, etc.

The president can sign EACH BILL with its level of set spending, or veto any one of them, and thus affect the total level of spending by sending any particular large scale department bill back.

Cf: Gerald Ford's veto record on spending bills. (66 vetos in a foreshortened one term, 12 overturned.) That's how a president reins in spending, and it is not a trivial or ineffective power. Unless, like a Reagan or a George W, they refuse to use that power very much if at all, and in that case, presidents surely bear some primary blame for the level of spending, having not complained or used what power they have.

Only in the case of an Omnibus bill containing ALL the bills as one is the president facing the TOTAL level of spending as an up or down matter. Usually, he has power to bring pressure on this bill, or that one, via a threat of veto, or the use of the veto.

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:12 AM
Unfortunately or fortunately this last congress pass no appropriations bill and once again went for a Hail Merry with a massive omnibus bill.

Omnibus bills of any sort should be made illegal though constitutional amendment. They are nothing but attempts to short circuit the system.

Qtec
01-21-2011, 07:12 AM
Its pretty clear to me. When you have a deficit problem your raise taxes. When you go to war, you raise taxes to pay for it.
<u>Even when Bush proved that extra tax cuts for the rich do not produce jobs, the GOP still used the same argument and got away with it.</u>

Over the last 30 years the rich have got richer and the working class is treading water. When the masses have less money to spend, demand falls. When money circulates and everyone spends things go well. That's just a fact.
Taxing the rich and giving that money to those who will spend it is a major lift to the economy but the right won't have it. Its redistributing the wealth.

Q

Sev
01-21-2011, 07:16 AM
When you have a deficit problem you stop spending and trim the fat.
The largest problem with the class gap is the US government.

Qtec
01-27-2011, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although the top tax rates were high, one must consider that the tax code allowed for virtually anything to be used as a business deduction. </div></div>

Even if they eventually paid the same amount in taxes, the is a difference.
In one case the person claims back expenses, ie <u>spent money </u>.
In the other case, the money went straight into the guy's pocket. eg, not stimulating the economy at all.

Money has to circulate.

Q

LWW
01-27-2011, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its pretty clear to me. When you have a deficit problem your raise taxes.

Q </div></div>

So when a guy can't cover his bills he should rob the local convenience store instead of cutting back?

LWW