 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Bush and O'Reilly, in denial. |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Chas |
 Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
According to O'Reilly, it's the war in Iraq, gas prices and the weak
governmental response to Katrina that is dogging Bush's ratings in the
polls. If that is all there is to it, then there is a chance for Bush to
re-ingratiate himself to the public before the end of his Presidency.
Unfortunately, O'Reilly is off on his assessment of Bush for the very same
reason that Bush and many Republicans can not and will not face the real
reason for Bush's fall in popularity, namely, Bush's larceny towards the
middle-class.
As an economist and professor, I've been telling my students since Bush's
highly successful re-election that Bush has committed the unforgivable and
will never be respected by the American public again, that is, history will
condemn him as a political fraud, a phony. Here's why. Bush said he had
collected capital in the last election and now he was going to cash that
capital in. So what did he do, he attempted to kill Social Security, to take
away health benefits for American workers, to take away interest deductions
on mortgages, to flood America with cheap labor, legally or illegally, and
run deficits so high through enormous bouts of federal spending that
Congress would be forced to raise payroll taxes to save the government from
default. This was the precious capital that Bush thought he earned in the
last election. The man with the MBA from Harvard, the man who wears a cowboy
hat, talks like he's a Texas dirt farmer and waves both the Bible and the
Koran around the White House. This was his precious capital.
Unfortunately, for people like Bush and O'Reilly, the cat is out of the bag.
The American people are waking up to Bush and what he really is and they
don't like what they see. O'Reilly had better wake up and smell the coffee
before he suffers the same fate as the President. Forget the flat-unfair
tax and value-added consumption tax, American's want healthcare, they want
to own a home and they want vertical equity in the structure of taxes.
Americans are smart, they know that Capitalism can work for the poor and the
middle just as well as it works for the Bush-O'Reilly super-rich.
Chas. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rvfulltime (was xenman) |
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:21:43 GMT, "Chas" <chasna2@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote:e0d9b75ca5]According to O'Reilly, it's the war in Iraq, gas prices and the weak
governmental response to Katrina that is dogging Bush's ratings in the
polls. If that is all there is to it, then there is a chance for Bush to
re-ingratiate himself to the public before the end of his Presidency.
Unfortunately, O'Reilly is off on his assessment of Bush for the very same
reason that Bush and many Republicans can not and will not face the real
reason for Bush's fall in popularity, namely, Bush's larceny towards the
middle-class.
As an economist and professor, I've been telling my students since Bush's
highly successful re-election that Bush has committed the unforgivable and
will never be respected by the American public again, that is, history will
condemn him as a political fraud, a phony. Here's why. Bush said he had
collected capital in the last election and now he was going to cash that
capital in. So what did he do, he attempted to kill Social Security, to take
away health benefits for American workers, to take away interest deductions
on mortgages, to flood America with cheap labor, legally or illegally, and
run deficits so high through enormous bouts of federal spending that
Congress would be forced to raise payroll taxes to save the government from
default. This was the precious capital that Bush thought he earned in the
last election. The man with the MBA from Harvard, the man who wears a cowboy
hat, talks like he's a Texas dirt farmer and waves both the Bible and the
Koran around the White House. This was his precious capital.
Unfortunately, for people like Bush and O'Reilly, the cat is out of the bag.
The American people are waking up to Bush and what he really is and they
don't like what they see. O'Reilly had better wake up and smell the coffee
before he suffers the same fate as the President. Forget the flat-unfair
tax and value-added consumption tax, American's want healthcare, they want
to own a home and they want vertical equity in the structure of taxes.
Americans are smart, they know that Capitalism can work for the poor and the
middle just as well as it works for the Bush-O'Reilly super-rich.
Chas.
[/quote:e0d9b75ca5]
I pity your students. It's clear that you are not objected and
extremely biased. You're interested in indoctrinating your
students rather than educating them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"rvfulltime (was xenman)" <rvfulltime@_removeme_isp.com> wrote in message
news:ciman1592qie37gfno2btejfrthci2o3jf@4ax.com...
[quote:8519503d21]On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 08:21:43 GMT, "Chas" <chasna2@earthlink.net> wrote:
According to O'Reilly, it's the war in Iraq, gas prices and the weak
governmental response to Katrina that is dogging Bush's ratings in the
polls. If that is all there is to it, then there is a chance for Bush to
re-ingratiate himself to the public before the end of his Presidency.
Unfortunately, O'Reilly is off on his assessment of Bush for the very
same
reason that Bush and many Republicans can not and will not face the real
reason for Bush's fall in popularity, namely, Bush's larceny towards the
middle-class.
As an economist and professor, I've been telling my students since Bush's
highly successful re-election that Bush has committed the unforgivable
and
will never be respected by the American public again, that is, history
will
condemn him as a political fraud, a phony. Here's why. Bush said he had
collected capital in the last election and now he was going to cash that
capital in. So what did he do, he attempted to kill Social Security, to
take
away health benefits for American workers, to take away interest
deductions
on mortgages, to flood America with cheap labor, legally or illegally,
and
run deficits so high through enormous bouts of federal spending that
Congress would be forced to raise payroll taxes to save the government
from
default. This was the precious capital that Bush thought he earned in the
last election. The man with the MBA from Harvard, the man who wears a
cowboy
hat, talks like he's a Texas dirt farmer and waves both the Bible and the
Koran around the White House. This was his precious capital.
Unfortunately, for people like Bush and O'Reilly, the cat is out of the
bag.
The American people are waking up to Bush and what he really is and they
don't like what they see. O'Reilly had better wake up and smell the
coffee
before he suffers the same fate as the President. Forget the flat-unfair
tax and value-added consumption tax, American's want healthcare, they
want
to own a home and they want vertical equity in the structure of taxes.
Americans are smart, they know that Capitalism can work for the poor and
the
middle just as well as it works for the Bush-O'Reilly super-rich.
Chas.
[/quote:8519503d21]
[quote:8519503d21]
I pity your students. It's clear that you are not objected and
extremely biased. You're interested in indoctrinating your
students rather than educating them.
[/quote:8519503d21]
Why pity my students? They come up with better counter arguments than the
one you gave above. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dlikl2$nt8$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:d74dd05987]
Hi,
But have Bush's economic policies changed since he was re-elected
(elected?)
in 2004?
[/quote:d74dd05987]
Yes, Bush promised that he would not touch Social Security and he would
verbally attack any person would said he would.
[quote:d74dd05987]
Maybe. That depends largely on how Iraq turns out. He may be remembered
as
the one who brought peace and democracy to the Middle-East, while all
previous US presidents failed.
[/quote:d74dd05987]
That's right.
[quote:d74dd05987]He may be remembered as the one who tried to "save" Social Security when
there was still time. Given that his plan was scrapped, SS is back to
facing the same problem: ever fewer workers trying to support ever more
retirees from a tax on wages only. Bush tried to shift the cost of
supporting the US elderly from a wage tax on US workers to the growrh
generated by the global economic expansion.
[/quote:d74dd05987]
Social Security is not in trouble and there are no WMD in Iraq.
[quote:d74dd05987]
The cost of health benefits will continue to increase as more people live
ever longer. Explain just which benefits he took away--or tried to. You
mean that complicated drug addition to Medicare?
....to take away interest deductions
on mortgages,
And (speaking as an economics professor) what do you think would be the
consequences of that on housing prices? And on home ownership?
[/quote:d74dd05987]
If you take away the morgage deduction, then home prices will fall. Then
Bush will be blessed by Wall-Street sharkies as the American middle-class
can no longer plan for retirement through capital gains on home ownership.
[quote:d74dd05987]That has been happening for decades. But a question-- which do you
prefer:
jobs move to Mexico? Or the Mexicans move here for those jobs?
And isn't that the choice? (I mean in the real world).
[/quote:d74dd05987]
Jobs are moving to Mexico and China and India. But, this is an issue of
national sovereignty. Mexico wants a de facto take over of the American
Southwest and we as Americans cannot allow that.
[quote:d74dd05987]"Payroll taxes" means FICA, which must be ever increased to cover Social
Security obligations. (see above), We are paying for that extra federal
spending by borrowing, largely from abroad.
Why Social Security is not in any trouble.[/quote:d74dd05987]
[quote:d74dd05987]
Sure, but who should decide what they get and who should pay for it and
how?
For example, can you imagine Congress funding any health care that
includes
abortions? Or even contraception? Remember the Hillary Clinton proposal
that would outlaw any medical treatment that was not provided by the
government?
[/quote:d74dd05987]
Absolutely, I don't want government medicine.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chas" <chasna2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c9Xff.717$aA2.48@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Social Security:
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]..... Bush promised that he would not touch Social Security and he would
verbally attack any person would said he would.
Jim Blair:.
He may be remembered as the one who tried to "save" Social Security when
there was still time. Given that his plan was scrapped, SS is back to
facing the same problem: ever fewer workers trying to support ever more
retirees from a tax on wages only. Bush tried to shift the cost of
supporting the US elderly from a wage tax on US workers to the growrh
generated by the global economic expansion.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
"Chas":
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Social Security is not in trouble and there are no WMD in Iraq.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Hi,
SS is not "in trouble" NOW. But clearly there is a problem on the horizon.
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]"Payroll taxes" means FICA, which must be ever increased to cover
Social
Security obligations. (see above), We are paying for that extra federal
spending by borrowing, largely from abroad.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
"Chas":
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]Why Social Security is not in any trouble.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Not now. But why wait for the demographic time bomb to explode before
trying to defuse it?
The Home Interest Deduction:
"Chas":
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]....to take away interest deductions
on mortgages,
And (speaking as an economics professor) what do you think would be the
consequences of that on housing prices? And on home ownership?
If you take away the morgage deduction, then home prices will fall.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
And would that be a GOOD THING?
(Hint: call it "houses become more affordable" ;-)
[quote:8b6fca1c5e].....Then
Bush will be blessed by Wall-Street sharkies as the American middle-class
can no longer plan for retirement through capital gains on home ownership.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
The "middle class" is making a mistake if they are depending on the
appreciation of their house to support them in retirement.
Better to invest in the Global Economy. See Social Security above.
On Trade and Immigration:
jeb:
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]That has been happening for decades. But a question-- which do you
prefer:
jobs move to Mexico? Or the Mexicans move here for those jobs?
And isn't that the choice? (I mean in the real world).
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
"Chas":
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Jobs are moving to Mexico and China and India.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Yes. Isn't that a good thing? Equalizing the wealth world wide. And more
jobs there mean fewer of them move here for those jobs.
[quote:8b6fca1c5e].....But, this is an issue of
national sovereignty. Mexico wants a de facto take over of the American
Southwest and we as Americans cannot allow that.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
And I agree. Start by making everyone living in the USA learn English before
they can hold a job or vote.
Health Care:
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]
jeb:
The cost of health benefits will continue to increase as more people
live
ever longer. Explain just which benefits he took away--or tried to.
You
mean that complicated drug addition to Medicare?
......[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
[quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Sure, but who should decide what they get and who should pay for it and
how?
For example, can you imagine Congress funding any health care that
includes
abortions? Or even contraception? Remember the Hillary Clinton
proposal
that would outlaw any medical treatment that was not provided by the
government?
Absolutely, I don't want government medicine.
[/quote:8b6fca1c5e]
Not an easy problem to resolve. Sure we want all of our medical bills to be
paid by someone else, but we don't want anyone else to decide what
treatments or medicines we can or can't have.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dmi1q7$6nf$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:54768d3ee9]
A any rate, Bush was proposing a RETIREMENT plan based on individual
accounts. I mean we now permit those with a high enough income to deduct
money for their retirement from their taxes using IRA's and 401K's. Low
income people can't do that because they pay FICA rather than IRA taxes.
[/quote:54768d3ee9]
Hi,
Oops, I said that wrong. High income people pay both FICA and income (IRS)
taxes.
They can deduct retirement investments from their IRS tax. But low income
people pay all or most of their taxes as FICA.
[quote:54768d3ee9]
Bush wanted to give low income people the same break that higher incomes
now
have.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
[/quote:54768d3ee9] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tonyp |
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
[quote:5502130308]Its not just the dividends and interest from those stocks
and bonds. I also have Social Security (for me and my wife)
plus she is now collecting a pension from the state of Wisconsin
and I will beginig next year when I plan to retire.
[/quote:5502130308]
I'm truly glad for you both. And I'm delighted that guvmint, state and
national, will be a significant contributor to your comfortable retirement
:-)
[quote:5502130308]But anyone can do what I did: save and invest 5-10% of income
while working, and put it into a mutual fund retirement account.
And that was easier for me than for some because
I could deduct it from my taxes. I say give that same break
to those with lower incomes as well.
[/quote:5502130308]
Jim, I am pretty sure your income was more than 5-10% above the poverty
line. For many people, it's not. So I resist your "anyone" claim. And
even if "anyone" (meaning, logically, "everyone") _could_ save that much,
some of them would see lower ROI than you have. Unless, of course, your
average returns have been at the extreme low end of the ROI distribution :-)
[quote:5502130308]You are confusing GDP with wages. The US Social Security
system is not funded from the GDP, but from wages only.
That is why Bush had the right idea: fund retirement
from the global GDP.
[/quote:5502130308]
Are you talking about Iraqui oil, or what? :-)
Seriously, Jim: right now, as we both know, SS is funding the general
federal budget, not the other way around. Wage taxes are being used to pay
the $5B monthly bill for Dubya's little war so that people with huge cap
gains and inheritances can get "tax relief". Well, if SS can fund the
budget as it has for a couple of decades now, then the budget can goddam
well return the favor some time. And the budget _is_ funded from taxes on
all parts of the GDP.
Of course, Dubya and his crowd (aren't you embarassed by their antics yet?)
have a very clear program: untax everything except wages. They're almost
there, so I may soon have to concede your minor point.
Your major point, I have addressed before: a massive net flow of capital
_out_ of the US _to_ "the world" is what you are asking for, if you want the
average American to invest in "the global GDP". Trade flows need to be
reversed on a grand scale. The average American needs to stop buying
Hyundai Elantras, and start buying Hyundai stock. He has to buy sewing
machines and wafer probers _for_ the Chinese, instead of buying shirts and
cellphones _from_ them. He has to spend less at Wal-Mart stores and more in
the Indian venture-capital market.
Now, these may be desirable trends to wish for. But I have no idea why you
think privatizing SS will encourage them.
Enough for now. I will address your remaining points in another post.
-- TP |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dmqbik$rgk$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:fbf8f8a06b]Hi,
The demographic problem for Social Security is clear to ME. It was clear
to
me and Barry Goldwater 40 years ago. Maybe you will see it by 2020 when
FICA no longer collects enough to pay Social Security benefits. Or maybe
in
2050 when the "trust fund" runs out.
[/quote:fbf8f8a06b]
The Trust Fund isn't going to run out. In fact, Bush wants to raise taxes on
work and funnel more money to those that don't work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dmfiuu$q0u$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:71068c49ae]
Hi,
Is FDR most remembered for his lying? If we win the war (have a good
outcome), the lies that got us into it are forgotten.
[/quote:71068c49ae]
Not this time. As a society, it will be easy to forget the two or three
thousand dead, but we already have well over a 100,000
who are maimed for life. These maimed and injured soldiers will be here for
a long time to remind us about the price this country paid for Bush's lies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:3eydnXGCAe5WmRHeRVn-vg@rcn.net...
[quote:11557fb24c]
???? The demographic problem with US Social Security
has been obvious since before Barry Goldwater point it out in 1964.
The real problem is that
politicians are afraid to deal with it (3rd rail and all).
[/quote:11557fb24c]
Wrong. The demographic scenario that was preached about in the decade of the
60's never happened. The fertility rate actually increased in the US and the
demographic bubble, the pig in the python, never happened. Right now,
generation Y is putting something like 4 million new workers a year in the
labor force and will be doing so for the next 20 years. Also, generation Y
has the highest rate of college for any generation in US history, so
productivity growth will continue to grow above trend.
There is no Social Security problem, there are no WMD's. It was all a lie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chas |
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dmi1q7$6nf$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:d49b436bd0]
A any rate, Bush was proposing a RETIREMENT plan based on individual
accounts. I mean we now permit those with a high enough income to deduct
money for their retirement from their taxes using IRA's and 401K's. Low
income people can't do that because they pay FICA rather than IRA taxes.
[/quote:d49b436bd0]
Bush wanted to under-fund Social Security on a pay-as- you-go-basis so he
could justify raising payroll taxes again. He had to admit he was lying
about the effect of the private accounts on the Trust Fund, but he dangled a
middle-class tax hike in front of Pelosi and she could hardly pass it up. If
we weren't close to another Presidential cycle, Pelosi would have grabbed
the middle-class tax hike as a trade to make Bush's tax cuts for the rich
permanent.
[quote:d49b436bd0]
Bush wanted to give low income people the same break that higher incomes
now
have.
[/quote:d49b436bd0]
Oh yes, poor people have lots of surplus funds laying about. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Chas" <chasna2@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Q_Vkf.10142$wf.5575@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[quote:353fba79bd]
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dmqbik$rgk$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
Hi,
The demographic problem for Social Security is clear to ME. It was
clear
to
me and Barry Goldwater 40 years ago. Maybe you will see it by 2020 when
FICA no longer collects enough to pay Social Security benefits. Or
maybe
in
2050 when the "trust fund" runs out.
The Trust Fund isn't going to run out.
[/quote:353fba79bd]
Hi,
The Social Security "trust fund" is projected to "run out" of money; the
only question is when. I have seen 2040-2050 given as estimates, depending
on the assumptions. If it never "runs out", it will be because of increases
in the FICA, reductions in the benefits, or increases in the age to collect,
a means test, or some combination of the above. Or else a radical change in
the sustem--like maybe the one proposed by Dubwa.
[quote:353fba79bd]...In fact, Bush wants to raise taxes on
work
[/quote:353fba79bd]
???? The only tax directly on work (wages) is the FICA. Does Bush want to
increase that?
I mean even the income tax is on INCOME from a variety of sources other
than just wages.
[quote:353fba79bd]...and funnel more money to those that don't work.
[/quote:353fba79bd]
??? In this context, it sounds like you mean the retired? But recall that
it was Clinton who raised the tax on Social Security payments.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tonyp |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
[quote:fddadcb8a3]I say every dollar collected in taxes by the federal governemt this year,
either by the IRS or by FICA will be spent this year on something.
[/quote:fddadcb8a3]
True, but incomplete. The federal government will _also_ spend, this year,
the proceeds from about $300 billion worth of bond sales.
You want to emphasize the similarity of SS contributions to "taxes". I want
to emphasize that the papers in that shabby filecabinet in Bethesda are in
fact "bonds", just like that $300B.
You are welcome to your point of view as long as you are not a hypocrite
about it. That is, if you want to call FICA an income tax, then I expect
you to pipe up next time some idiot cites statistics like "the top 1% pay X%
of taxes" -- because chances are he's leaving FICA out of "taxes".
-- TP |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:PvydneZePviUfQ7eRVn-rg@rcn.net...
[quote:b17a47935e]
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
Its not just the dividends and interest from those stocks
and bonds. I also have Social Security (for me and my wife)
plus she is now collecting a pension from the state of Wisconsin
and I will beginig next year when I plan to retire.
I'm truly glad for you both. And I'm delighted that guvmint, state and
national, will be a significant contributor to your comfortable retirement
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Hi,
I didn't make the rules, but since I must play by them, I use them to my
advantage as best I can.
I quit a high paying job at a large chemical company, in part because I saw
their GREAT pension plan as a way for them to tie me to the company.
I was more comfortable with a lower paying job (that I liked better), but
that also set up my retirement through private investments that were not
connected to the particular job. And a good thing that was since my new job
teaching ended when the college went broke, and meanwhile the pension plans
of large corporations aren't looking so good anymore :-(
[quote:b17a47935e]
But anyone can do what I did: save and invest 5-10% of income
while working, and put it into a mutual fund retirement account.
And that was easier for me than for some because
I could deduct it from my taxes. I say give that same break
to those with lower incomes as well.
Jim, I am pretty sure your income was more than 5-10% above the poverty
line. For many people, it's not. So I resist your "anyone" claim.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Strange story in that. My first job out of the UW was as a research chemist
at DuPont. My pay was actually 80% of that of Bart Sarr the Green Bay
Packer quarterback in the first Super Bowl!
(I wish I had 80% of the salary of the current Packer quarterback or of the
winning Super Bowl quarterback this year ;-)
But it was actually easier to save/invest 5% of my much lower salary as a
college teacher (I was probably in the next to bottom income quintile) than
when I was a Du Pont chemist. I say the higher your income the harder it is
to save 5% of it.
[quote:b17a47935e]....And
even if "anyone" (meaning, logically, "everyone") _could_ save that much,
some of them would see lower ROI than you have. Unless, of course, your
average returns have been at the extreme low end of the ROI distribution
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Sure some investments do better than others. I claim that if people stick
to broad based mutual funds, they are almost certain to do better than
Social Security during the next 20, 30, 40 or 50 years.
[quote:b17a47935e]
You are confusing GDP with wages. The US Social Security
system is not funded from the GDP, but from wages only.
That is why Bush had the right idea: fund retirement
from the global GDP.
Are you talking about Iraqui oil, or what? :-)
Seriously, Jim: right now, as we both know, SS is funding the general
federal budget, not the other way around. Wage taxes are being used to
pay
the $5B monthly bill for Dubya's little war so that people with huge cap
gains and inheritances can get "tax relief".
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Or to pay for FEMA, farmers to not grow crops and the highways to nowhere,
etc.
[quote:b17a47935e]....Well, if SS can fund the
budget as it has for a couple of decades now, then the budget can goddam
well return the favor some time.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Thus that "Trust Fund": sure general revenues will someday pay SS back what
it "borrowed" someday, starting in about 2020.
But after that Trust Fund is empty, do you think general revenues will
continue to give money to rich retirees on a non-means test basis?
[quote:b17a47935e]...And the budget _is_ funded from taxes on
all parts of the GDP.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
So why keep the FICA?
[quote:b17a47935e]
Of course, Dubya and his crowd (aren't you embarassed by their antics
yet?)[/quote:b17a47935e]
Yes, by some of them. Same with Clinton and some of the Dems as well.
[quote:b17a47935e]have a very clear program: untax everything except wages. They're almost
there, so I may soon have to concede your minor point.
Your major point, I have addressed before: a massive net flow of capital
_out_ of the US _to_ "the world" is what you are asking for, if you want
the
average American to invest in "the global GDP". Trade flows need to be
reversed on a grand scale. The average American needs to stop buying
Hyundai Elantras, and start buying Hyundai stock.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
They should buy the stock, but also buy the car best suited to their needs
as well, no matter who built that car.
[quote:b17a47935e].....He has to buy sewing
machines and wafer probers _for_ the Chinese, instead of buying shirts and
cellphones _from_ them.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
When they have the money from the wages from those jobs, they can buy the
things they want or need. As is happening now. I remember Chinese cities
as masses of bycicles just a few years ago it seems. Now they look just
like cities in Europe or the US: cars everywhere. Too bad they choose cars
over bikes, but then we did too :-(
[quote:b17a47935e]...He has to spend less at Wal-Mart stores and more in
the Indian venture-capital market.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
If he bought from a yuppie boutique instead of Wal-Mart, he would have less
money to invest in that Indian venture-capital market.
[quote:b17a47935e]
Now, these may be desirable trends to wish for. But I have no idea why
you
think privatizing SS will encourage them.
[/quote:b17a47935e]
Because more people would be putting money into investments instead of into
the US treasury.
[quote:b17a47935e]
Enough for now. I will address your remaining points in another post.
-- TP
[/quote:b17a47935e]
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"tonyp" <tonyp@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:D8KdnTKu_4LRogreRVn-rg@rcn.net...
[quote:069a33734d]
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote
I say every dollar collected in taxes by the federal governemt this
year,
either by the IRS or by FICA will be spent this year on something.
True, but incomplete. The federal government will _also_ spend, this
year,
the proceeds from about $300 billion worth of bond sales.
You want to emphasize the similarity of SS contributions to "taxes".
[/quote:069a33734d]
Hi,
Yes. Because the FICA "contribution" IS a tax. in everything but name. It
is a tax on wages only, and differs from the income tax because it "flat',
is capped on top and has no lower limit deduction.
[quote:069a33734d]....I want
to emphasize that the papers in that shabby filecabinet in Bethesda are in
fact "bonds", just like that $300B.
You are welcome to your point of view as long as you are not a hypocrite
about it. That is, if you want to call FICA an income tax, then I expect
you to pipe up next time some idiot cites statistics like "the top 1% pay
X%
of taxes" -- because chances are he's leaving FICA out of "taxes".
-- TP
[/quote:069a33734d]
Typically that idiot is careful to say that IRS data shows the top 1% of
incomes pay X% of the total income tax collected.
As Grinch pointed out years ago, the US now has approximately a "flat tax"
if FICA and IRS taxes are taken together. He posted this information when
so many were denouncing the Steve Forbes plan for a SIMPLE flat tax on all
incomes.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:55 pm
|
|