Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you claim my front tire is going flat around the corner it isn't up to me to prove your wrong. Fear mongers need facts and data otherwise the chicken little "the sky is falling" bs is, well BS.
Just yesterday I suggested to a wingnut that we means test SS benefits so wealthy retirees don't abuse SS. their reply surprised me, 'i paid into it so I'm entitled to it' doesn't matter that they might have a loaded 401k and could do without... Screw the poor elderly bastards I "earned" mine.
That my friend is the problem, someone that doesn't need SS feels they should take it anyways. Screw their grandkids, tax wise, so they can benefit now.
What part of taxing the top 1% at a 100% rate don't you understand?
What part of 1.4 million households fall into the top 1% category don't you understand?
You can tax the absolute snot out of them and you won't fix the problems of Medicare and SS. You can remove those top 1% from SS all together and use their entire earnings every year and you won't be able to pay for SS.
Quote:
Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable wages will grow rapidly from 11-1/2 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17 percent in 2035, and will then dip slightly before commencing a slow upward march after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled roughly 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and are projected to increase gradually to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 6.0 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level.
The whole international system—as constructed following WWII—will be revolutionized. Not only will new players—Brazil, Russia, India and China— have a seat at the international high table, they will bring new stakes and rules of the game.
The unprecedented transfer of wealth roughly from West to East now under way will continue for the foreseeable future.
Unprecedented economic growth, coupled with 1.5 billion more people, will put pressure on resources—particularly energy, food, and water—raising the specter of scarcities emerging as demand outstrips supply.
The potential for conflict will increase owing partly to political turbulence in parts of the greater Middle East.
NIC 2025 Project (http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html - broken link)
Now who do you think is more accurate knowing what you know about how fast your jobs are leaving you and how quickly the cost of goods and services are rising?
Last edited by BigJon3475; 02-26-2012 at 10:50 AM..
By the way it'll have to be 33 years before I'll even be eligible for SS.
I'll be funding SS now with my earned income only to find it completely exhausted when it comes time for me to retire.
Not that it really freaking matters because you folks can't seem to understand trends but there's a very clear trend going on in America and the rest of the world and it's right in front of your rose colored glasses.
So what does that tell you? If you tax them at 100% you'll be able to cover your budget deficits however someone is going to need to pay their part of the other $2.3 trillion and that'll be people that sort of have it, the middle class.
Then, of course, you have the whole enslavement thing to do with...
Down here you're talking income, I'm suggesting we tax FINANCIAL WEALTH. Personal FINANCIAL wealth is more than $55 trillion and the top 1% own 47% of that. $27 trillion, more or less. Taxing that wealth alone at 3% fully funds the government each year with no deficit. We could pay off the debt completely in less than three years by adding that WEALTH tax and doing nothing else.
You see, the debt problem is fixable, but the uber wealthy make much of their income from the "financing" of that debt.
The OASDI annual cost rate is projected to increase from 11.21 percent of taxable payroll in 2007, to 16.59 percent in 2030, and to 18.55 percent in 2081, or to a level that is 5.20 percent of taxable payroll more than the projected income rate for 2081. In last year's report the OASDI cost for 2080 was estimated at 18.74 percent, or 5.38 percent of payroll more than the annual income rate for that year. Expressed in relation to the projected gross domestic product (GDP), OASDI cost is estimated to rise from the current level of 4.3 percent of GDP, to 6.2 percent in 2030, and to 6.3 percent in 2081.
Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost will increase more rapidly than tax income between about 2010 and 2030 due to the retirement of the large baby-boom generation. After 2030, increases in life expectancy and the relatively low fertility rates experienced since the baby boom will continue to increase Social Security system costs relative to tax income, but more slowly. Annual cost will exceed tax income starting in 2017, at which time the annual gap will be covered with cash from redemptions of special obliga*tions of the Treasury that make up the trust fund assets until these assets are exhausted in 2041. Separately, the DI fund is projected to be exhausted in 2025 and the OASI fund in 2042. For the 75-year projection period, the actu*arial deficit is 1.70 percent of taxable payroll, 0.26 percentage point smaller than in last year’s report. The open group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $4.3 trillion in present value, and is $0.4 trillion less than the measured level of a year ago. In the absence of any changes in assumptions, methods, and starting values, the unfunded obligation would have risen to almost $5.1 trillion due to the change in the valuation date.
Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost will increase more rapidly than tax income between about 2012 and 2030 because the retirement of the baby-boom generation will cause the number of beneficiaries to rise much faster than the labor force. After 2030, increases in life expectancy and the continued relatively low fertility rates experienced since the baby boom will generally cause Social Security system costs to increase relative to tax income, but more slowly. Annual cost will exceed tax income starting in 2016, at which time the annual gap will be covered with cash from redemp*tions of special obligations of the Treasury that make up the trust fund assets until these assets are exhausted in 2037. Individually, the DI fund is pro*jected to be exhausted in 2020 and the OASI fund in 2039. For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 2.00 percent of taxable payroll, 0.30 percentage point larger than in last year’s report. The open group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $5.3 trillion in present value, and is $0.9 trillion more than the measured level of a year ago. In the absence of any changes in assumptions, methods, and starting values, the unfunded obligation would have risen to about $4.6 trillion due to the change in the valuation date.
Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost generally increases more rapidly than tax income through 2035 because the retirement of the babyboom generation increases the number of beneficiaries much faster than subsequent relatively low-birth-rate generations increase the labor force. From 2035 to 2050, the cost rate declines somewhat due principally to the aging of the already retired baby-boom generation. Thereafter, increases in life expectancy generally cause OASDI cost to again increase relative to tax income, but more slowly than prior to 2035. Annual cost is projected to exceed tax income in 2010 and 2011, to be less than tax income in 2012 through 2014, then to exceed tax income in 2015 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. Interest earnings on trust fund assets alone will be sufficient to cover the annual difference between cost and tax revenue until 2025. The dollar level of the Trust Funds is projected to be drawn down beginning in 2025 until assets are exhausted in 2037. Individually, the DI fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 and the OASI fund in 2040.
Under the intermediate assumptions, OASDI cost generally increases more rapidly than non-interest income through 2035 because the retirement of the baby-boom generation increases the number of beneficiaries much faster than subsequent lower-birth-rate generations increase the labor force. From 2035 to 2050, the cost rate declines due principally to the aging of the already retired baby-boom generation. Thereafter, increases in life expectancy generally cause OASDI cost to increase relative to non-interest income, but more slowly than prior to 2035. Annual cost is projected to exceed non-interest income in 2011 and remain higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. However, total income, including interest earnings on trust fund assets, will be sufficient to cover annual cost until 2023. The dollar level of the combined trust funds is projected to be drawn down beginning in 2023 until assets are exhausted in 2036. Individually, the DI Trust Fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 and the OASI Trust Fund in 2038.
Most of those 46% that don't pay income tax is because of the poverty that they face due to low income. With the increasingly high cost of food and energy, there is almost no way for a family of 4 to get by with only 20k a year.
Well, the problem starts when people who are barely making ends meet to support each other, decide to have a child. Children are expensive and the costs should be considered. If you are just making ends meet without having a child, maybe having a child, or more children, just isnt the wise choice
Just yesterday I suggested to a wingnut that we means test SS benefits so wealthy retirees don't abuse SS. their reply surprised me, 'i paid into it so I'm entitled to it' doesn't matter that they might have a loaded 401k and could do without... Screw the poor elderly bastards I "earned" mine.
That my friend is the problem, someone that doesn't need SS feels they should take it anyways. Screw their grandkids, tax wise, so they can benefit now.
Those who pay into the system are greedy and feel entitled while those who don't pay in or pay very little are also entitled. The only consistent position you have is your inconsistency.
Those who pay into the system are greedy and feel entitled while those who don't pay in or pay very little are also entitled. The only consistent position you have is your inconsistency.
FYI, if you get any SS benefits you have to pay into it. Duh...
What is wrong with means testing what is basically an insurance program?
Tell me, if you pay auto insurance premiums all your life and never have a claim are you owed a payment?
Down here you're talking income, I'm suggesting we tax FINANCIAL WEALTH. Personal FINANCIAL wealth is more than $55 trillion and the top 1% own 47% of that. $27 trillion, more or less. Taxing that wealth alone at 3% fully funds the government each year with no deficit. We could pay off the debt completely in less than three years by adding that WEALTH tax and doing nothing else.
You see, the debt problem is fixable, but the uber wealthy make much of their income from the "financing" of that debt.
According to IRS and Census it's more like $10 - 11.5 trillion for people with estates $1.5 million or more.
There would have to be a 10% tax on wealth to cover just the budget deficits.
How long do you think you could tax these people at 10% for things like Personal residence, Other real estate, Closely held stock, Publicly traded stock, State and government bonds, Federal bonds, Corp. and foreign bonds, Bond funds, Diversified mutual funds, Cash, Cash management accounts, Mortgages and notes, Cash value life insurance, Non-corporate business assets, Farm assets, Limited partnerships, Retirement assets, Art and Other assets before they completely left for all the emerging markets you continually hear about?
1) Buffett does pay the taxes that he legally owes.
Not according to the IRS.
Quote:
2) "If you want to stop an activity, tax it," might make a good bumper sticker but it's false. We tax lots of things in America and we don't stop it -- even activities that we want to stop, like cigarette smoking, we've been unable to stop through taxation. So, your claim it's false.
If you subsidize an activity you get more of it, if you tax an activity you get less of it. The fact that it doesn't stop altogether isn't proof that taxing something doesn't limit it. Smoking has dropped from 42.4% of the population to 20.8% since 1965, and is continuing to drop every year.
Quote:
3) You couldn't be more wrong with that "wealth creation" myth.
It shows who the top 0.1% are. If you add together nonfinance executives, “financial professions”, real estate, and lawyers, you’ve got more than 70 percent of the total; plus some of the other categories are probably essentially business executives too. Basically, the top 0.1% is the corporate suits, with a few token sports and film stars thrown in.
Thus, the vision of the wealthy being entrepreneurs is mainly a myth.
Don't conflate two different things. Nobody ever said the top 1% were all entrepreneurs. So don't try to disprove that and then claim it disproves the "myth" of wealth creation. That's just strawman stuff.
Wealth creates wealth. It's not a myth, it's reality. It takes money to build a factory to produce goods to market and make more money. It's about the money, not the person who owns it. You can't say Shaq has millions of dollars but he's a baskeball player so therefore he doesn't create jobs. His millions absolutely do create jobs. His money isn't sitting in a piggy bank on a shelf in his closet. It's invested. So he isn't creating jobs himself, but his money is out there in the economy.
Quote:
They're mainly corporate executives and Wall Street types. With respect to the track record of Wall St., apart from wealth creation, it's caused lots of job and wealth destruction over the last few years. Oh, and those corporate executives don't create jobs unless consumers demand their goods or services. Consumers are the job creators.
That's true in a general sense of course but it's not something you can create policy around. Demand driven economics is a failure. Keynes was wrong. Artificially raising demand does not kickstart an economy.
Quote:
The right-wing rhetoric that high-income individuals are “wealth creation” machines who must be cherished for the good they do, is just baloney -- 6.3% of them are not working or are deceased.
Again with the straw man. Forget the occupation distribution of the super rich. It's irrelevant. What you need to do is prove that the act of capital investment doesn't generate wealth, not who owns the capital.
Well, the problem starts when people who are barely making ends meet to support each other, decide to have a child. Children are expensive and the costs should be considered. If you are just making ends meet without having a child, maybe having a child, or more children, just isnt the wise choice
Sure, and the best way to prevent unwanted births (and abortions) is to make birth control available. FYI, humans were created to have sex, it is programmed into the genes all species to aid in reproduction. Why would the right be anti-birth control while complaining about the "excess burden" caused by a natural instinct?
Last edited by buzzards27; 02-26-2012 at 12:42 PM..
FYI, if you get any SS benefits you have to pay into it. Duh...
What is wrong with means testing what is basically an insurance program?
Tell me, if you pay auto insurance premiums all your life and never have a claim are you owed a payment?
You can't use the insurance analogy and win the argument - you sure you want to go there? Let me know. I'll school you right quick.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
