Extending payroll tax cut (Mexican, health care, death, abortion)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. You said to-

a. increase the corporate tax rate
b. tax "the rich"

both of these things would hurt the economy. It is not a "personal attack", these are just facts. Many small buisnesses are "S corps" which pay taxes as an individual.

Or partnerships; partners are taxed as individuals.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

3. Social security and medicare is funded through the payroll tax. If you cut the funding for these programs by eliminating that tax, where does the revenue come from?

That is the part they don't understand.

Short-falls in Social Security taxes are made up of money from the General Fund which is then credited against the Social Security Trust Fund.

I have repeatedly tried to explain that, but in spite of my heroic efforts, I have failed, so I will enlist the aid of CNN:

While the tax cut would reduce revenue flowing into Social Security, the Treasury Department would credit the trust funds -- dollar-for-dollar -- with the money that would go into workers' pockets. It would then simultaneously deduct that amount from the government's general revenue fund.

Payroll tax cut: What about Social Security? - Dec. 8, 2011

So the tax holiday is at the expense of the Social Security Trust Fund.

I guess you could sum it up by saying that nothing in life is free, everything costs something, if not money, then time or resources.

The tax holiday is costing future benefits.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

No, it would not hurt the economy if you eliminated the payroll tax. Eliminating the payroll tax would be a huge boost to the economy.

If you eliminated the payroll tax then you have to eliminate both Social Security and Medicare, because you no longer have a way to pay for them.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

And I never said anything about "taxing the rich." I said we should spread the tax burden from just wages, to include net worth. Why do you hate middle-income people so much?

That would be a disastrous policy.

Before you engage in such fantasy, you should at least have the courtesy to crunch the numbers.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Corporate balance sheets are stronger now, than they've been at any time in American history. Corporations are flush with cash to spend, but yet, hiring isn't going on. So there goes your theory.

We've been over this more times than I care to.

How does a corporation prevent a leveraged buy-out or hostile takeover?

It sits on tons of cash.

For the umpteenth time, I will repeat the story of Durant.

1] General Motors fires Durant.
2] Durant meets Louis Chevrolet.
3] Durant and Chevrolet design, build and sell Chevrolet autos under the name Chevrolet.
4] Durant captures the US domestic auto market with sales of the Chevrolet.
5] Durant uses the massive profits he gets from his friggin' huge share of the domestic auto market to buy up all the stock he can in General Motors
6] General Motors' weak sales and small percentage of the market leaves them powerless to stop Durant
7] Durant ultimately acquires 51% of GM stock...

That makes Duran the owner of GM. Why? Because he owns 51% of the stock -- he is the majority share-holder.

At a share-holder meeting, Durant names himself CEO of General Motors. Why? Um, again, Durant owns 51% of all GM stock and is the majority share-holder.

Could General Motors have stopped Durant?

Yes, if they had a huge stock-pile of cash to use to buy up their own stock, and since it is a Supply & Demand issue, the stock prices would have risen and eventually forced Durant to fail in his bid to buy up as much as he could.

We've seen that recently. KRK/Kravits attempts a hostile take-over of Krogers. What does Krogers do? They take the huge stock-pile of cash they are sitting on and do two things: pay off debt and restructure their loans, plus they start buying up Krogers stock.

The value of Krogers' stock sky-rockets and KRK/Kravits can't touch it.

Krogers is saved (from being hacked up by KRK/Kravits).

That is why US corporations off-shore.

They off-shore to enter emerging markets and gain global share, not domestic share. That prevents US corporations from being bought up and dismantled by foreign competitors (and in the end saves US jobs).

If you want to start a business and employe 250 workers and you $8 Million to do that, neither the government, nor a bank, corporations are going to give you that money.

That money comes from private investors.

That's how they create new jobs, by providing you with the cash Capital.

Where do you think Qualcomm got its money? From a bank? No. From the government? No. From other corporations? No. They got it from private investors.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Furthermore , I did not say "tax the rich." I said "tax wealth." Rather than having TWO business taxes (payroll and corporate), and TWO personal taxes (payroll and personal income), I think we need a flat tax on wealth that includes the net worth of everyone. That includes EVERYONE , not just rich people.

Why do you want to penalize people with middle incomes? What is your problem with them?

You're the one who wants to penalize people with middle incomes, because if you attempt to tax wealth, those who have real wealth will shelter it, while the middle income crowd will get left holding the bag.

Besides, how are you going to use your McMansion as a huge credit card if the equity (wealth) in your McMansion is being taxed?

Originally Posted by florida.bob

You regurgitated the GOP lie that the tax holiday takes money away from SS. It does not. Be a man, own up.

I'm going to throw your CNN link right back into your face:

Technically, it should have no effect.

Payroll tax cut: What about Social Security? - Dec. 8, 2011

Weasel words. "Technically" it should have no effect, but in reality it will. It will deplete the Trust Fund faster.

It will also negatively impact your economy.

If the government takes $1 Billion from the General Fund to pay Social Security, then how can the government award $1 Billion in contracts?

That is effectively a spending cut. If a federal court house was going to spend $100 Million on renovations that would employ 100+ workers for about 2 years, that just isn't going to happen, because that money has to be spent on Social Security.

You ought to consider that government spending has been the only thing keeping your economy out of a recession, and now you're going to scale back and cut government spending to pay for Social Security. That is brilliant.

Congratulations for proving to everyone you don't understand what you read.

There is no doubt in my mind that if you read the June 2011 SSA report, you don't understand it.

From page 44 of the report:

Payroll tax contributions from the year 2010, plus projected payroll tax contributions for 2011 and 2012 (Low Cost Assumption) are give as thus:

2010 $544.8
2011 $482.7
2012 $616.1

What is wrong with that picture?

SSA believes that its payroll tax revenues will increase by a whopping 28.82%.

SSA stupidly relied on the CBO report which stated that your unemployment rate would be in the 5% range by December 2012.

I repeatedly told you all that the CBO was wrong and that there was no possible way to achieve a 5% unemployment rate by December 2012.

I was right, the CBO was wrong (having changed their song and dance routine to December 2016 and then later changed it to "we don't know").

Note that in order for your economy to return to its former glory, is not enough to have an unemployment rate of 5%. You must have an unemployment rate of 5% and a labor participation rate of 66.4% or you failed.

Indeed, SSA is overly optimistic in their revenue assumptions, falsely believing that your between 2013 and 2020 revenues will increase by an average 5.22% per year, even though the historical average ranges from 4% to 4.5% per year.

Because SSA failed in its estimates, you will burn through the Social Security Trust Fund faster, reaching $0 in 2028 instead of 2036.

And then everyone's benefits will be reduced 23%.

This....

Goss also noted that workers' future Social Security benefits would be unaffected because workers would be credited as if they paid the full 6.2% despite getting the payroll tax holiday.

...is disinformation; classic psy-ops warfare.

Your Social Security benefits are not dependent on the amount of Social Security taxes you paid.

Your eligibility is based on having worked in at least 40 different payroll quarters over the course of your life-time. At first glance, it appears you need to work for 10 years, but that is not true. You can work only 40 days in your whole life and still qualify, so long as you worked at least one day in 40 different payroll quarters, and your earnings were taxable. The amount of payroll taxes you paid are irrelevant.

Your benefits are determined by the amount of money you earned, specifically your highest 3-year average earnings, to which a formula is applied. Technically, there is no minimum benefit, however SSA will not pay less than $1.

So why would Goss, who happens to be the "Social Security Chief Actuary" make such a bone-headed statement?

Well, Goss seems to think revenues will increase 28.82% in 2012, so I guess that explains it. He isn't exactly competent in what he does.

And this...

Put another way, the trust fund would need an additional $6.5 trillion in current dollars to pay all scheduled benefits in full over the next 75 years.

Social Security, Medicare to run short sooner than expected - May. 13, 2011

...from the other link in the story is wrong.

On page 74 of the June 2011 SSA report, the present value of GDP in 2085 is given as "$1,460.4 trillion"

Your current GDP is $15.059 TRILLION.

Your GDP will have to grow at the fantastical rate of 6.4% each and every single year for the next 74 years, which is an impossibility.

I have already proven that over the last 50 years, your GDP has grown an average of 2.89% per year.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Let me get this straight. So you want to extend the payroll tax cut, yet you also want to continue with medicare and social security benefits?

The "shortfall" from the lack of revenues due to the payroll tax cut is to be made up with worthless special treasuries, thus making the unpaid liability for medicare and social security that much greater.

You cannot have it both ways. What do you want- No payroll tax or social benefits?

Now that is a joke.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

You can absolutely have it both ways. You don't know what you're talking about. There are a wide variety of ways to fund our social welfare system.

No, there aren't. You don't have the money; never did, don't have it now; and never will have it.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

My personal favorite: Scrap the payroll tax, and replace it with a tax on net worth, that fully funds Medicare and SS.

Not very knowledgeable in history.

Once upon a time, US oil companies controlled all of the oil in Mexico.

They got 92% of the profits from the sale of the oil, and the Mexican government got 8% of the profits and then also collected taxes from US oil corporations.....in theory.

In reality, the US oil companies devalued their assets, so that they didn't have to pay the 8% royalties and owed almost nothing in taxes, which they refused to pay anyway, because, well, historically the US government murdered heads-of-State or overthrew the government for attempting to tax US corporations.

The Mexican government sued the oil companies for back taxes owed, the Mexican Supreme Court ordered the oil companies to pay the back taxes, and President Cardenas gave them an entire you to comply.

The oil companies refused, so President Cardenas seized all of the oil company assets, and that's how Mexico's oil became nationalized.

Cardenas offered the US government $24 Million, which was exactly the stated amount US oil companies claimed their assets were worth, but FDR considered that an insult. He was going to invade Mexico, but it was 1939 and with WW II looming on the horizon, the US couldn't afford to tie up a naval task force and army and marine units in Mexico (plus the possibility of a civil war between the "white Mexicans" and the "Native American Indian Mexicans" was a very real possibility -- the Mexican government was continually putting down revolts and rebellions -- and that would exasperate the problems and the US needed that oil).

Anyway, the point is that people will find clever ways to devalue their net worth, shelter it, or off-shore it to avoid paying the taxes on it, so it is a losing proposition. It will be the Lower and Middle Classes who get stuck with the burden, since they aren't very clever and don't have the means to protect their wealth.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

But you could also scrap the payroll tax and raise the corporate income tax to pay for it.

Oh, that's a brilliant idea. Foreign corporations already pay less in taxes than US corporations, plus foreign corporations are subsidized by their governments, so they already have an unfair advantage over US corporations in the global economy.

Why don't we just set up US corporations to fail. You apparently don't need them.

Built Dongfeng-Ford Tough

Wouldn't you rather be driving a Jianghuai-Buick?

Imagine Yourself in a Fiat-Mercury now.

Hyundai-Hyummer. Like Nothing Else.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Or you could scrap the payroll tax and raise the personal income tax to pay for it.

Yes, a minimum tax bracket of 50% is sure to please everyone.

Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus

Or you could scrap the payroll tax and institute a sales tax to pay for it.

Or you could scrap the payroll tax and fund the entire system as an ongoing budget deficit. (Under this scenario, to put a damper on inflation, you may have to return to full-reserve banking.)

I don't think you understand the scope of the amount of money that is involved here. As I said, you never had the money to pay for those programs; you don't have the money now; and you never will have the money.

The amount of money that you owe on future payments to both Medicare and Social Security is more than your country can cough up.

By 2030, you're going to have to find $2 TRILLION to cover Social Security, because the Trust Fund will be gone and even at 6.2% your payroll taxes will leave you a $2 TRILLION short-fall, and that $2 TRILLION is in addition to whatever you're collecting for your General Fund, and I have no idea where you'll find the $5.25 TRILLION you'll need for Medicare.

And by 2030 Kazakhstan's oil production will balloon from 1.4 million barrels per day to 5 million barrels per day, and most of it headed to Novorossiysk to be sold in Euros and Rubles. What do you think that will do for your US Dollar and your economy?

You're just not looking at the big picture.

Originally Posted by florida.bob

The purpose is to provide some funds to millions of Americans who will actually spend it.

At most it would offset Cost Inflation and nothing more. It was a bad decision, and you'll see (and feel it) eventually.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. You said to-

a. increase the corporate tax rate
b. tax "the rich"

both of these things would hurt the economy. It is not a "personal attack", these are just facts. Many small buisnesses are "S corps" which pay taxes as an individual. Increasing taxes on buisness encourages them to not create new hires and to potentially move offshore for lower taxes. - pretty simple stuff.

Only if you tax productivity. If you raise the taxes on leaches it has the same effect as cutting waste in government services. Taxing cigarettes for example was one obvious case. Taxing land since it is not a product makes little difference since the value will just become a loss of equity to a bank if left untaxed. People will always tend to finance it to the least marginal return until there is little equity ownership at all.

2. I don't care about reducing taxes for people who actually pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes, it is hard to reduce that level from Zero to Zero minus.

3. Social security and medicare is funded through the payroll tax. If you cut the funding for these programs by eliminating that tax, where does the revenue come from?

This is money on a computer keyboard. It doesn't mean anything unless you change people's behavior. Raising the retirement age funds it in the real world because people will work longer. That's the principle to follow. Saving now when people sleep in all day unemployed means we are not adding to our capital or improving our labor which is the only real source of wealth. Why is stopping economic output good exactly? But then again we built barns in exurbia so we might want to try some incentives for R&D.

4. I can read. You said to increase taxes on corporations and "the rich". Now if you do that , one would offer that those tax increases are in fact tax increases.

5. "shift that burden to a wide variety of revenue sources which have a broader base" .................. i.e. tax "the rich" and corporations, thus destroying the economy even further.

Not if it stops rent seeking. Buying up farm land increases prices because it increases the cost of real production. Money does not just funnel into industrial capital. It can spur leveraged buyouts, hoarding and all sorts of anti-productive behavior. In the extreme cases think about two countries investing in war production. At least during the tech bubble we got technology like this. What did we get from the housing bubble? Nothing but higher prices for everything. Rising land values = poverty. A worker with twice the mortgage cost that much more money. I saw the salaries in NYC and the Bay area when i was in the job market. I would not take less than 120k to even think about working there, and that is if I were desperate.

Here is a novel idea. If you want social security and medicare, why not keep the taxes in place to pay for it? I know that sounds odd to a liberal, but keep in mind that Uncle Sam's bucket is empty and even slavery of the "rich" cannot pay for all the social programs you want.

Its not paying for it. Its saving computer digits. The computer digits need to change human behavior to produce. People have debt overhead they cannot pay off so the economy must shrink. We are in the middle of an output gap now, meaning we are drawing more blood than can be replaced. We are at a point were more saving means less of everything because the behavior is to cease production. The only way to maintain the standard of living is to balloon the trade gap.

So again.................. which is it?

A. Payroll tax cuts
B. Medicare and Social Security?

Irrelevant. Its about the money supply and the current debt overhead sucking it all out of the system. Deficits replace the money supply which is the point of the tax cut. Republicans used to know this stuff. What happened to them? I know because I was one.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Or partnerships; partners are taxed as individuals.

It sits on tons of cash.

For the umpteenth time, I will repeat the story of Durant.

1] General Motors fires Durant.
2] Durant meets Louis Chevrolet.
3] Durant and Chevrolet design, build and sell Chevrolet autos under the name Chevrolet.
4] Durant captures the US domestic auto market with sales of the Chevrolet.
5] Durant uses the massive profits he gets from his friggin' huge share of the domestic auto market to buy up all the stock he can in General Motors
6] General Motors' weak sales and small percentage of the market leaves them powerless to stop Durant
7] Durant ultimately acquires 51% of GM stock...

That makes Duran the owner of GM. Why? Because he owns 51% of the stock -- he is the majority share-holder.

At a share-holder meeting, Durant names himself CEO of General Motors. Why? Um, again, Durant owns 51% of all GM stock and is the majority share-holder.

Could General Motors have stopped Durant?

Yes, if they had a huge stock-pile of cash to use to buy up their own stock, and since it is a Supply & Demand issue, the stock prices would have risen and eventually forced Durant to fail in his bid to buy up as much as he could.

We've seen that recently. KRK/Kravits attempts a hostile take-over of Krogers. What does Krogers do? They take the huge stock-pile of cash they are sitting on and do two things: pay off debt and restructure their loans, plus they start buying up Krogers stock.

The value of Krogers' stock sky-rockets and KRK/Kravits can't touch it.

Krogers is saved (from being hacked up by KRK/Kravits).

That is why US corporations off-shore.

They off-shore to enter emerging markets and gain global share, not domestic share. That prevents US corporations from being bought up and dismantled by foreign competitors (and in the end saves US jobs).

Rock solid micro economics. Taxing corporations just taxes production. They should simply tax resource values as the only source of revenue.

If you want to start a business and employe 250 workers and you $8 Million to do that, neither the government, nor a bank, corporations are going to give you that money.

That money comes from private investors.

That's how they create new jobs, by providing you with the cash Capital.

Where do you think Qualcomm got its money? From a bank? No. From the government? No. From other corporations? No. They got it from private investors.

Another important detail. Banks do not fund bond or stock markets. Any involvement carefully shifts risks to the investor. They loan against assets, not directly into capital markets.

You're the one who wants to penalize people with middle incomes, because if you attempt to tax wealth, those who have real wealth will shelter it, while the middle income crowd will get left holding the bag.

Besides, how are you going to use your McMansion as a huge credit card if the equity (wealth) in your McMansion is being taxed?

Directly from income since they would have a surplus. Now all the surplus goes into a mortgage with an interest charge. McMansions are not spring boards to productivity.

If the government takes $1 Billion from the General Fund to pay Social Security, then how can the government award $1 Billion in contracts?

That is effectively a spending cut. If a federal court house was going to spend $100 Million on renovations that would employ 100+ workers for about 2 years, that just isn't going to happen, because that money has to be spent on Social Security.

Money creation in slack economies has no impact at all. Its like saving seats in an empty theater. If it contributes in some way to a foreign debt for consumption purposes then its a problem.

You ought to consider that government spending has been the only thing keeping your economy out of a recession, and now you're going to scale back and cut government spending to pay for Social Security. That is brilliant.

Spending doesn't matter as much as deficits. Though spending on something useful wouldn't hurt.

Note that in order for your economy to return to its former glory, is not enough to have an unemployment rate of 5%. You must have an unemployment rate of 5% and a labor participation rate of 66.4% or you failed.

That is the real number and its not going to happen. Can't compete with $2000 a month financial overhead. We are going to do the Detroit plan. We are not going to write off the debt. we are going to destroy the land value to make the porridge get to the right temperature. Who knows, maybe we will depopulate to the point when we can have a new Jamestown. Its working great in the Baltic regions . Whatcha do is sell property that can make $500 a week max and rent it out for $1000 a week. You will hit the right spot once the land value reaches 0.

Indeed, SSA is overly optimistic in their revenue assumptions, falsely believing that your between 2013 and 2020 revenues will increase by an average 5.22% per year, even though the historical average ranges from 4% to 4.5% per year.

Because SSA failed in its estimates, you will burn through the Social Security Trust Fund faster, reaching $0 in 2028 instead of 2036.

Your micro economic commentary is fantastic but for some reason you are also beguiled by those numbers on a computer. Its about what people make and who is going to get it then. Since we are not making much, that's the problem.

Not very knowledgeable in history.

Once upon a time, US oil companies controlled all of the oil in Mexico.

They got 92% of the profits from the sale of the oil, and the Mexican government got 8% of the profits and then also collected taxes from US oil corporations.....in theory.

In reality, the US oil companies devalued their assets, so that they didn't have to pay the 8% royalties and owed almost nothing in taxes, which they refused to pay anyway, because, well, historically the US government murdered heads-of-State or overthrew the government for attempting to tax US corporations.

Don't forget the salty sludge we give them from the Colorado river. I just can't understand why people get all mad when we steal their stuff like in Iran. So unreasonable. So what if we toppled their government, tried to steal their oil for the British, and then installed a dictator who tortured and killed them. They should be like the Mexicans and just take it. We have done this all over the world.

The Mexican government sued the oil companies for back taxes owed, the Mexican Supreme Court ordered the oil companies to pay the back taxes, and President Cardenas gave them an entire you to comply.

The oil companies refused, so President Cardenas seized all of the oil company assets, and that's how Mexico's oil became nationalized.

Cardenas offered the US government $24 Million, which was exactly the stated amount US oil companies claimed their assets were worth, but FDR considered that an insult. He was going to invade Mexico, but it was 1939 and with WW II looming on the horizon, the US couldn't afford to tie up a naval task force and army and marine units in Mexico (plus the possibility of a civil war between the "white Mexicans" and the "Native American Indian Mexicans" was a very real possibility -- the Mexican government was continually putting down revolts and rebellions -- and that would exasperate the problems and the US needed that oil).

Anyway, the point is that people will find clever ways to devalue their net worth, shelter it, or off-shore it to avoid paying the taxes on it, so it is a losing proposition. It will be the Lower and Middle Classes who get stuck with the burden, since they aren't very clever and don't have the means to protect their wealth.

The solution is right under their feet. Their own real estate if taxed properly would provide all the revenue needed and this would take 80% of the FIRE sector out of the picture. US corporations tend to be able to defend themselves anyway. Low taxes always just leaves more for the banks to finance and collect interest on.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Let me get this straight. So you want to extend the payroll tax cut, yet you also want to continue with medicare and social security benefits?

The "shortfall" from the lack of revenues due to the payroll tax cut is to be made up with worthless special treasuries, thus making the unpaid liability for medicare and social security that much greater.

You cannot have it both ways. What do you want- No payroll tax or social benefits?

Now that is a joke.

My original post isn't about that so what *I* want is irrelevant. My main point was the hypocrisy of the GOP who have always championed for smaller government and tax cuts so Americans can keep more of their money.

But since the Senate Republicans voted against it, they have pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Looks like the GOP is looking out for the wealthy again.

Now, THAT is a joke.

[florida.bob]

Originally Posted by TimC2462

My original post isn't about that so what *I* want is irrelevant. My main point was the hypocrisy of the GOP who have always championed for smaller government and tax cuts so Americans can keep more of their money.

But since the Senate Republicans voted against it, they have pretty much painted themselves into a corner. Looks like the GOP is looking out for the wealthy again.

Now, THAT is a joke.

I heard a rumor that the House Repubs were thinking of skipping out of town tonight. Boehner saying, extending the tax cuts is "chicken shi.." .
Now that would be a wise move?

[Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus]

Originally Posted by Mircea

If you eliminated the payroll tax then you have to eliminate both Social Security and Medicare, because you no longer have a way to pay for them.

so you just find a new way to pay for them.

That would be a disastrous policy.

Before you engage in such fantasy, you should at least have the courtesy to crunch the numbers.

disastrous, why?

We've been over this more times than I care to.

How does a corporation prevent a leveraged buy-out or hostile takeover?

It sits on tons of cash.

....

Could General Motors have stopped Durant?

Did General Motors want to stop DuRant? Perhaps DuRant would've been a better manager and a good owner. I'm not following what hostile takeovers have to do with the topic. The threat of hostile takeovers isn't going to simultaneously prevent firms from hiring workers en masse across the national economy.

Yes, if they had a huge stock-pile of cash to use to buy up their own stock, and since it is a Supply & Demand issue, the stock prices would have risen and eventually forced Durant to fail in his bid to buy up as much as he could.

We've seen that recently. KRK/Kravits attempts a hostile take-over of Krogers. What does Krogers do? They take the huge stock-pile of cash they are sitting on and do two things: pay off debt and restructure their loans, plus they start buying up Krogers stock.

The value of Krogers' stock sky-rockets and KRK/Kravits can't touch it.

Krogers is saved (from being hacked up by KRK/Kravits).

That is why US corporations off-shore.

They off-shore to enter emerging markets and gain global share, not domestic share. That prevents US corporations from being bought up and dismantled by foreign competitors (and in the end saves US jobs).

so? did you get lost on your way to the lecture hall or something?

If you want to start a business and employe 250 workers and you $8 Million to do that, neither the government, nor a bank, corporations are going to give you that money.

That money comes from private investors.

That's how they create new jobs, by providing you with the cash Capital.

Where do you think Qualcomm got its money? From a bank? No. From the government? No. From other corporations? No. They got it from private investors.

What does qualcomm have to do with the payroll tax?

You're the one who wants to penalize people with middle incomes, because if you attempt to tax wealth, those who have real wealth will shelter it, while the middle income crowd will get left holding the bag.

how do you figure?

Besides, how are you going to use your McMansion as a huge credit card if the equity (wealth) in your McMansion is being taxed?

you aren't. that's the point.

No, there aren't. You don't have the money; never did, don't have it now; and never will have it.

I said there are other ways to pay for social security besides a payroll tax. I don't know how on earth this babbling response constitutes an answer.

Not very knowledgeable in history.

Once upon a time, US oil companies controlled all of the oil in Mexico

-snip-

Anyway, the point is that people will find clever ways to devalue their net worth, shelter it, or off-shore it to avoid paying the taxes on it, so it is a losing proposition. It will be the Lower and Middle Classes who get stuck with the burden, since they aren't very clever and don't have the means to protect their wealth.

I don't buy your fatalist view, that certain people will always be able to screw the government, so therefore we shouldn't even try to make them pay a fair share. Other countries tax wealth and we should too. We place too much of the tax burden on wages.

Oh, that's a brilliant idea. Foreign corporations already pay less in taxes than US corporations

No they do not.

plus foreign corporations are subsidized by their governments, so they already have an unfair advantage over US corporations in the global economy.

Subsidized foreign competition is a good thing. This means that foreign governments are using their tax dollars to produce goods and services for us, for cheaper than the market would bear.

Why don't we just set up US corporations to fail. You apparently don't need them.

No, corporations should fail if they have a poor business model. That's capitalism. You don't prop up something with government protection, or government tax dollars, just because it is inconvenient for it to fail.

Yes, a minimum tax bracket of 50% is sure to please everyone.

I obviously did not say a 50% tax bracket. You're about as bad as pghquest, with dodging the real question, and then knocking down a strawman triumphantly.

I don't think you understand the scope of the amount of money that is involved here.

SS+Medicare's annual costs are somewhere in the ballpark of $1 trillion. I can't recall the exact number. Projections are in the trillions, but they are just that: projections.

As I said, you never had the money to pay for those programs; you don't have the money now; and you never will have the money.

who is "you" ? Anyway, the government cannot "not have the money". The government owns the printing presses.

The amount of money that you owe on future payments to both Medicare and Social Security is more than your country can cough up.

By 2030, you're going to have to find $2 TRILLION to cover Social Security, because the Trust Fund will be gone and even at 6.2% your payroll taxes will leave you a $2 TRILLION short-fall, and that $2 TRILLION is in addition to whatever you're collecting for your General Fund, and I have no idea where you'll find the $5.25 TRILLION you'll need for Medicare.

We'll find it from the printing press, same place we've always found it.

And by 2030 Kazakhstan's oil production will balloon from 1.4 million barrels per day to 5 million barrels per day, and most of it headed to Novorossiysk to be sold in Euros and Rubles. What do you think that will do for your US Dollar and your economy?

What does your crystal ball have to do with the price of tea in china?

You're just not looking at the big picture.

i just don't live in your fantasy world where payroll taxes MUST fund SS/medicare.

[Moth]

Wow!

A lot of you really feel strong about that whopping 2%.

Don't drink it all away.

[OhBeeHave]

Originally Posted by Moth

Wow!

A lot of you really feel strong about that whopping 2%.

Don't drink it all away.

I ordered my deli sandwich. Once a week I can have a nice lunch

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by Moth

Wow!

A lot of you really feel strong about that whopping 2%.

Don't drink it all away.

I guess some of you don't make squat. Even 60k a year is a $100 a month. Who should get the money ? A banker?

All printing money does is absolutely nothing when everyone gets the same amount of money...so the saying goes. Oh those clever neo-classicals using those barter models trying to hide fat finance behind a bean pole. They always just skip over those people in those giant banker sky scrappers built by debtors.

What it does do is shift money from creditors to debtors when you add the finance to these bater model swindles. That's what is what they don't tell you. Inflation shifts money from creditor to debtor, to the ones doing most of the work.

[waterboy7375]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

I guess some of you don't make squat. Even 60k a year is a $100 a month. Who should get the money ? A banker?

All printing money does is absolutely nothing when everyone gets the same amount of money...so the saying goes. Oh those clever neo-classicals using those barter models trying to hide fat finance behind a bean pole. They always just skip over those people in those giant banker sky scrappers built by debtors.

What it does do is shift money from creditors to debtors when you add the finance to these bater model swindles. That's what is what they don't tell you. Inflation shifts money from creditor to debtor, to the ones doing most of the work.

Now why dont you feel the same way about income tax? Or do you , but only for some people.