Federal Taxes, your take (salary, radical, lobby, companies)

[Kode]

Everything that happens in the economy happens because of LAWS. And we reap the results of those laws.

Those laws have produced a population, half of which needs public assistance of some sort. And now some of you want to deal with this by cutting services to those who need it most. How about paying for what we need by cutting real waste and by taxing those who can afford it most at a reasonable level once again?!!!!

"Tax and spend"? YES! We are not taxing (enough) and we are not spending (enough) where it is most beneficial.

[Nothere1]

Originally Posted by Kode

Everything that happens in the economy happens because of LAWS. And we reap the results of those laws.

Those laws have produced a population, half of which needs public assistance of some sort. And now some of you want to deal with this by cutting services to those who need it most. How about paying for what we need by cutting real waste and by taxing those who can afford it most at a reasonable level once again?!!!!

"Tax and spend"? YES! We are not taxing (enough) and we are not spending (enough) where it is most beneficial.

I keep getting this response from Oregonians. Tax the top, tax the top. WHERE DOSE IT STOP! You always have people poor (the stupid ones) that are wanting your hard earned money. In Illinois when I made $10000 a year, I had a**hole rich kids that didn't work and "career students" getting government grants to be only full time students saying I need to help them out because I'm rich. $20000 a year and these people and my job said I need to help transport people because I'm too rich. $30000 a year and I'm way to rich, I need to pay for their housing, tuition, vehicle, kids, etc. Do we end up at the bottom fighting for food on the streets because a man with a apple is too rich. I started a state tax thread because yes, taxes in some states where high, I'm a social liberal and financially conservative. I've often told my communist friends I wouldn't mind paying more if that means getting better results, I'd even go communist if I can still have freedoms. I have many social worker friends, friends in health care, I am homeless and did a lot of charity work in missions, know many people who went to college and their degrees are as good as toilet paper to most companies. I've been "in the thick of it", I don't feel along with many at the bottom, more money is the answer, better spent money is the answer.

[Kode]

Originally Posted by Nothere1

I keep getting this response from Oregonians. Tax the top, tax the top. WHERE DOSE IT STOP!

I told you: it "stops" at the tax rate we had when Reagan took office.

You always have people poor (the stupid ones) that are wanting your hard earned money. In Illinois when I made $10,000 a year, I had a**hole rich kids that didn't work and "career students" getting government grants to be only full time students saying I need to help them out because I'm rich. $20,000 a year and these people and my job said I need to help transport people because I'm too rich. $30,000 a year and I'm way to rich, I need to pay for their housing, tuition, vehicle, kids, etc.

You're not making sense nor a point here. It's just personal anecdote.

Do we end up at the bottom fighting for food on the streets because a man with a apple is too rich. I started a state tax thread because yes, taxes in some states where high, I'm a social liberal and financially conservative. I've often told my communist friends I wouldn't mind paying more if that means getting better results, I'd even go communist if I can still have freedoms.

Communism is dead. There are no communists in this country other than a few fringe whacko CPUSA nutjobs. I say this and I favor socialism. But you are talking personal anecdotes and trying to give them weight.

I have many social worker friends, friends in health care, I am homeless and did a lot of charity work in missions, know many people who went to college and their degrees are as good as toilet paper to most companies. I've been "in the thick of it", I don't feel along with many at the bottom, more money is the answer, better spent money is the answer. (Rambling)

Ya, whatever.

If you are homeless, keep posting. I'm getting some clues here.

[Nothere1]

Originally Posted by Kode

It's not my opinion. Reality has nothing to do with your 1:5,000 ratio. Reality is that a few right wing sites and sources spin and lie about S.S. Show me a site where you get the story that S.S. is broke and I'll debunk it and show you it's a lie. FACT: The S.S. Trust Fund is managed, totaled, and tightly accounted for daily. It contains $2.9 trillion from FICA payroll receipts. Show me a site that says otherwise and I'll debunk that, too. This is not about "paper" tricks. Your sources are bunk.


That is within the parameters of its purpose.



WHAT?? Do you understand what you're talking about? "Healthcare providers" are doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, and health supplies providers, ...--like prosthesis suppliers and providers of crutches and wheelchairs. They aren't "middle men". The only middle men are the private insurance companies and yes, they skim plenty for high CEO pays, profits, advertising, legal departments, "investment accounts", etc. etc.

SS - The government has pulled money from places before to cover expenses they weren't to pull from, that's just a known fact. As I said before this could all be a stupid conspiracy issue, which is all over the internet take your pick, I hope it is, I like the idea , and would be more than happy in say 40 years. Secondly, my ratio is not one sided, I've herd this from a number of democrats that also like the idea, doesn't make it right but shows you the confidence in the SS system.

As for health care I think your confused. There are many different companies and levels to health care, you can't just group them altogether. This is why Medicare and Medicaid is so hard to regulate, I don't think the people running these programs are complete idiots, they too in interviews say they don't have the man power to check everything. There is not just one bill, one evil company. I lost, IMO one of the few good doctors, my GP when he switch to another career in the health insurance field investigating insurance fraud. AND YES THERE ARE MIDDLE MEN IN THE HEALTH SYSTEM, like anywhere. My grandfather would make orders and run to Canada for cheaper pills, here in the US a lot of middle men mark up those pills. You liberals want a working social health care system but won't take advise from our neighbors who already have it figured out. By the way, my GP got his degree in Nova Scotia and thought our future system was a mess, as do many.

[Nothere1]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"why is there even one govt job training program?"

I agree 100%.

I have these open to me for some of my issues but I don't go to them. First, they aren't very good, in my opinion just take government money. Two, an employer, and I have had them say this to me, would wonder why you needed this in the first place, why where you behind in this that you would need special training, when you put it on an application?

[Kode]

Originally Posted by Nothere1

SS - The government has pulled money from places before to cover expenses they weren't to pull from, that's just a known fact.

We are talking about S.S. here. Regarding S.S., the gov does NOT "pull money from places to cover expenses".

As I said before this could all be a stupid conspiracy issue, which is all over the internet take your pick, I hope it is, I like the idea , and would be more than happy in say 40 years.

Whatever that means.

Secondly, my ratio is not one sided, I've herd this from a number of democrats that also like the idea, doesn't make it right but shows you the confidence in the SS system.

It's BS and you have no link to show otherwise.

As for health care I think your confused.

My what?

There are many different companies and levels to health care, you can't just group them altogether. This is why Medicare and Medicaid is so hard to regulate, I don't think the people running these programs are complete idiots, they too in interviews say they don't have the man power to check everything. There is not just one bill, one evil company.

(Rambling opinion of no consequence. No point.)

I lost, IMO one of the few good doctors, my GP when he switch to another career in the health insurance field reaching insurance fraud.

(More rambling)

AND YES THERE ARE MIDDLE MEN IN THE HEALTH SYSTEM, like anywhere. My grandfather would make orders and run to Canada for cheaper pills, here in the US a lot of middle men mark up those pills.

This started when you incorrectly identified doctors and other healthcare providers as "middlemen".

You liberals want a working social health care system but won't take advise from our neighbors who already have it figured out.

(More unsupported opinion with no actual point)


By the way, my GP got his degree in Nova Scotia and thought our future system was a mess, as do many.[/quote]
(More unsupported opinion of no consequence)

Wow. I suppose you vote too.

[pkbab5]

Originally Posted by Kode

Reality is that a few right wing sites and sources spin and lie about S.S. Show me a site where you get the story that S.S. is broke and I'll debunk it and show you it's a lie. FACT: The S.S. Trust Fund is managed, totaled, and tightly accounted for daily. It contains $2.9 trillion from FICA payroll receipts. Show me a site that says otherwise and I'll debunk that, too. This is not about "paper" tricks. Your sources are bunk.

You are being taken for a fool. I'm sorry.

Yes, the S.S. Trust Fund is managed, totaled, and accounted for daily. And yes, it contains $2.9 trillion from FICA payroll receipts. All of the money in the trust fund is invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.

The trick is understanding what exactly the above means.

What is a "non-marketable security issued by the federal government"? Well, it's basically a treasury bond. Now, how do those work? The way those work is that you give the treasury some money, and they give you a "bond", which says that the treasury owes you that amount of money, plus a certain amount of interest, when the bond matures. Right?

This is exactly how it works for Social Security too. Check all of your sources all you like, they will back me up. When you pay your FICA payroll taxes for social security, that money goes to the government. The government immediately (by law) is required to purchase a government security (treasury bond) with that money. The money then goes into the general treasury for use in general spending, and the bond goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.

With me so far?

Now the money that went into the general treasury is immediately used for general government spending, including paying out to current Social Security recipients. Easy enough. Now, think about those bonds. What are they exactly? They are money that the US government has *borrowed*, and is paying interest on. They are part of the national debt.

If you go look at any website about the national debt, and who we the United States owes money to, it will say that $5 trillion of that debt is owed to our own federal government. And that $2.9 trillion of that debt owed to the federal government is... the Social Security Trust Fund.

So let me break that down for you. The US government is currently running at a huge deficit (about $1 trillion projected for 2016), which is growing, not shrinking. The current federal debt is $17 trillion ($2.9 of that from the SS Trust Fund). What that means is, in order for the government to actually truly liquidate any of the bonds in the SS Trust Fund (without just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul), the government would first have to balance the budget (cut $1 trillion of spending or raise an EXTRA $1 trillion in taxes every year), and THEN on TOP of that allocate some money to the liquidating of the Social Security Trust Fund Bonds.

Now how much is $1 trillion? It can be hard to imagine how much cutting would have to be done to achieve $1 trillion in cuts. I'll try and make it meaningful.

$1 trillion is ALL of Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment, put together. If we cut ALL of all 3 of those things, we would balance the budget.

or

$1 trillion is over DOUBLE the Defense budget ($477 million). So we could cut the entire Department of Defense, all of it, and we'd still only be halfway to balancing the budget. You'd have to cut all of Welfare (defined as all means tested entitlement programs run by the federal government) in addition to it ($598 million) in order to balance the budget.

Put another way, government spending in 2015 was $3.8 trillion. We'd have to cut over 1/4th of that out in order to balance the budget, and then cut EVEN more of that to pay any of the Social Security Trust Fund out.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[pkbab5]

Originally Posted by Kode

It was all paid for. The borrowing requirement is not the fault of S.S. Social Security is a cash cow that the Fed is milking and spending. The $2.9 trillion in the Trust Fund is as real as your money in your bank. Do you think your bank has your money in all cash waiting for you?

A bank is required by law to hold a 10% cash reserve. In other words, they have to have cash set aside that is equal to at least 10% of their liabilities.

The US government has very little cash reserve. They have almost no cash set aside. Then generally spend all that they get, and then some. If they were a bank, then they would be required to set aside 10% of their liabilities to hold in cash. With a debt of $17 trillion, that means they would be required to hold $1.7 trillion in cash, set aside, not spent. They don't do that. If you look at their daily treasury statement, they currently have $278 million, cash on hand (as of Aug 29, 2016).

Yes, if the government behaved like a bank and kept $1.7 trillion cash set aside, then the money in the Social Security Trust Fund would be "as real as your money in your bank". But they don't. And it's not. Currently, the way that the government pays out treasury bonds to the Trust Fund is by selling more bonds on Wall Street, and then using that money to pay the SS Trust Fund. Basically, they borrow from Peter to pay Paul, because the money to pay Paul is not there. So our "Trust Fund" completely and utterly depends on the US Federal government being able to keep borrowing more money.

Which, incidentally, is why keeping a high credit rating and not defaulting is so important. Because if our credit rating ever tanks for any reason, the US government would not be able to borrow anymore and the SS Trust Fund would essentially be empty.

[Kode]

Originally Posted by pkbab5

You are being taken for a fool. I'm sorry.

By whom?

Yes, the S.S. Trust Fund is managed, totaled, and accounted for daily. And yes, it contains $2.9 trillion from FICA payroll receipts. All of the money in the trust fund is invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.

The trick is understanding what exactly the above means.

What is a "non-marketable security issued by the federal government"? Well, it's basically a treasury bond. Now, how do those work? The way those work is that you give the treasury some money, and they give you a "bond", which says that the treasury owes you that amount of money, plus a certain amount of interest, when the bond matures. Right?

This is exactly how it works for Social Security too. Check all of your sources all you like, they will back me up. When you pay your FICA payroll taxes for social security, that money goes to the government. The government immediately (by law) is required to purchase a government security (treasury bond) with that money. The money then goes into the general treasury for use in general spending, and the bond goes into the Social Security Trust Fund.

With me so far?

So far you are 100% correct.

Now the money that went into the general treasury is immediately used for general government spending, including paying out to current Social Security recipients. Now, think about those bonds. What are they exactly? They are money that the US government has *borrowed*, and is paying interest on. They are part of the national debt.

Correct. They owe S.S. the money because S.S. paid for the bonds with real money.

If you go look at a website about the national debt, and who we the United States owes money to, it will say that $5 trillion of that debt is owed to the federal government. And that $2.9 trillion of that debt owed to the federal government is the Social Security Trust Fund.

True.... because they "borrowed" it. It is owed just like money is owed to anyone who holds a Treasury bill, bond, or note.

So let me break that down for you. The US government is currently running at a huge deficit (about $1 trillion projected for 2016), which is growing, not shrinking. The current federal debt is $17 trillion ($2.9 of that from the SS Trust Fund). What that means is, in order for the government to actually liquidate any of the bonds in the SS Trust Fund, the government would first have to balance the budget (cut $1 trillion of spending or raise an EXTRA $1 trillion in taxes every year), and THEN on TOP of that allocate some money to the liquidating of the Social Security Trust Fund Bonds.

Now let me break that down for you. That is not the fault of S.S. The bonds were paid for just as bonds purchased by anyone who has bought Treasuries paid for theirs. And the money is owed just as it is for millions of Americans who own Treasuries, and pension funds, and foreign investors, and everyone else. They are still considered to be the safest investment we have. But the point is that S.S. paid for theirs in the Trust Fund. And the question is "what do you want to do about that?" Do you deny your debts? Do you stiff those you owe? Government owes S.S. what is theirs.

Now how much is $1 trillion? It can be hard to imagine how much cutting would have to be done to achieve $1 trillion in cuts. I'll try and make it meaningful.

$1 trillion is ALL of Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment, put together. If we cut ALL of all 3 of those things, we would balance the budget.

Since S.S. Trust Fund is worth $2.9 trillion, your math doesn't add up. But just think: when banks were facing failure if you and everyone had just said "ah heck, just cut what you owe me, ... cancel it. I don't want it" the banks would have recovered much more easily. But your numbers are incorrect as you will see in a moment...

or

$1 trillion is over DOUBLE the Defense budget ($477 million).

I think you meant "billion". . . . but wait! . . .

So we could cut the entire Department of Defense, all of it, and we'd still only be halfway to balancing the budget. You'd have to cut all of Welfare (defined as all means tested entitlement programs run by the federal government) in addition to it ($598 million) in order to balance the budget.

Not true. Wrong, -as you will see....

Put another way, government spending in 2015 was $3.8 trillion. We'd have to cut over 1/4th of that out in order to balance the budget, and then cut EVEN more of that to pay any of the Social Security Trust Fund out.

The 2015 deficit was $438 billion. The 2016 deficit is estimated to total $616 billion. So your point, whatever it was, is moot. And your condescending attitude is inappropriate. I worked as a financial planner though I am now retired.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Kode]

Originally Posted by pkbab5

A bank is required by law to hold a 10% cash reserve. In other words, they have to have cash set aside that is equal to at least 10% of their liabilities.

The US government has zero cash reserve. They have no cash set aside. Then spend all that they get, and then some. If they were a bank, then they would be required to set aside 10% of their liabilities ($17 trillion in debt) to hold in cash. That's $1.7 trillion in cash, set aside, not spent.

Yes, if the government behaved like a bank and kept $1.7 trillion cash set aside, then the money in the Social Security Trust Fund would be "as real as your money in your bank". But they don't. And it's not.

Since the government is not, and should not, -act as a business, your argument is void. But even if we honestly address your comments I'd have to ask you to distinguish between S.S. which is run by strict accounting standards, and general government which is run quite differently. And when we do that we find that S.S. is not the problem and should not be listed as a problem with regard to the national debt since S.S. is entirely paid for.