Federal Taxes, your take (unemployed, economy, financial, retired)
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.
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.
Except that it is a well known fact that the entity with which SS entrusts all of it's assets and holdings is broke.
Perhaps you are correct that the government should not act as a business. Okay. But it shouldn't act how it is acting right now either. It is playing Russian roulette with our economy to appease all of the left AND right wing cries of "give me more money I NEED IT!!!" If we don't do SOMETHING then things are going to get really really messy in 10 to 20 years when we can no longer afford our interest payments.
You have me mixed up with other posters, I never said SS was the problem.
Ok, but you fooled me. It sounded like you were saying S.S. is not solvent and takes from the general fund.
Quote:
The problem is that the rest of the government spent it all. And the rest of the government is trying to restructure Social Security so that it doesn't HAVE to go into the Trust Fund, so that the US government can get out of paying the money back. THAT's why there's all this talk about restructuring Social Security. The the Government owes SS what is theirs, but I don't think they can pay it back.
An obvious solution which would put off the government needing to pay back the funds would be to just eliminate the FICA cap and treat all income including dividend income as earned income.
If the republican congress would stop obstructing everything, we could do a few things that would put people back to work making good incomes and paying good taxes. Also, in the past when the debt was high (after WWII) the debt was largely made irrelevant by growing the economy which made the debt much lower as a percentage of the GDP. As a percentage of GDP the debt was higher then, and these two measures worked.
Quote:
There are different projections. If you would like to take the more conservative projection, okay sure. $616 billion deficit.
Since you were a financial planner, you know that the amount of the deficit is not as important as the fact that we just keep running a deficit, when it comes to being able to pay back our liabilities and keep up our credit rating.
Yes, of course.
But originally today, you seemed to be taking exception to what I said about S.S. and I guess we are now on the same page. Not sure.
Ok, but you fooled me. It sounded like you were saying S.S. is not solvent and takes from the general fund.
If the republican congress would stop obstructing everything, we could do a few things that would put people back to work making good incomes and paying good taxes. Also, in the past when the debt was high (after WWII) the debt was largely made irrelevant by growing the economy which made the debt much lower as a percentage of the GDP. As a percentage of GDP the debt was higher then, and these two measures worked.
But originally today, you seemed to be taking exception to what I said about S.S. and I guess we are now on the same page. Not sure.
It sounded like you were under the impression that SS had a trust fund of cash ready and waiting to be paid out to the recipients and that everything was hunky dory. If that's not the case, then sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sure, SS is solvent. As solvent as a person who has no cash, but lots of "money", only they have lent all to their brother, who has spent it all, and is broke. Yes, they can take their brother to court and get a ruling, but you can't get blood from a rock.
Except that it is a well known fact that the entity with which SS entrusts all of it's assets and holdings is broke.
When has it not been broke? Government runs on debt. It is "necessary".
Quote:
Perhaps you are correct that the government should not act as a business. Okay. But it shouldn't act how it is acting right now either. It is playing Russian roulette with our economy to appease all of the left AND right wing cries of "give me more money I NEED IT!!!"
I think you know and agree that the economy is sluggish, that the middle class income has been stagnant and even shrinking, and that the poorer the person the more they have lost of income. We need to take care of legitimate needs, and there are plenty. Therefore it is true that "we need it" and that is the job of government. Not all welfare and other public assistance is due to laziness. There are legitimate needs out there. The "lazy" problem is one of a very tiny minority and therefore should not be the among reasons guiding our solutions to a stagnant economy.
Ok, but you fooled me. It sounded like you were saying S.S. is not solvent and takes from the general fund.
An obvious solution which would put off the government needing to pay back the funds would be to just eliminate the FICA cap and treat all income including dividend income as earned income.
If the republican congress would stop obstructing everything, we could do a few things that would put people back to work making good incomes and paying good taxes. Also, in the past when the debt was high (after WWII) the debt was largely made irrelevant by growing the economy which made the debt much lower as a percentage of the GDP. As a percentage of GDP the debt was higher then, and these two measures worked.
But originally today, you seemed to be taking exception to what I said about S.S. and I guess we are now on the same page. Not sure.
Also, the low GDP has nothing to do with an obstructionist "republican congress" and you know it. It's because of globalization and the fact that the U.S. no longer has the highest quality resources (educated manpower) in the world. Other countries are now better educated than us, and will work more for less, and they are simply out doing us. We are losing the competition and our GDP is the scoreboard.
There's nothing there I think a democrat congress would be able to fix. They all have their heads in the sand, in my opinion. Both sides of the aisle.
It sounded like you were under the impression that SS had a trust fund of cash ready and waiting to be paid out to the recipients and that everything was hunky dory. If that's not the case, then sorry for the misunderstanding.
No, not cash of course. But whatever it was invested in, it would be owed. Some argue that it should be invested in the stock market. Not even to mention that it would lead to having to sell securities to generate revenue when the market is occasionally low and thereby lose the gains that were there, just also think about what it would do to the DJIA of S.S. were so invested and had to sell securities regularly. It would stop stock market gains and then where would we be?
My point is that the S.S. monthly obligations are paid for as is the Trust Fund value, so including S.S. as part of the debt, while I understand it, can be misleading to those who don't. And some opportunistic politicians use that fact.
Quote:
Sure, SS is solvent. As solvent as a person who has no cash, but lots of "money", only they have lent all to their brother, who has spent it all, and is broke. Yes, they can take their brother to court and get a ruling, but you can't get blood from a rock.
Let me offer a more relevant analogy:
"Sure, SS is solvent. As solvent as a person who has no cash, but lots of money [u]in the bank[/i], only they (S.S.) have stronger protection than the FDIC of banks to safeguard funds."
Also, the low GDP has nothing to do with an obstructionist "republican congress" and you know it.
What I know is that democrats have tried to get bills through to raise tax revenue on just those who can afford it without any suffering in order to fund infrastructure projects and put people to work at good-paying jobs, and the republicans obstructed all of it, like most everything else in their zeal to make Obama a "do nothing president".
It's because of globalization and the fact that the U.S. no longer has the highest quality resources (educated manpower) in the world. Other countries are now better educated than us, and will work more for less, and they are simply out doing us. We are losing the competition and our GDP is the scoreboard.
There's nothing there I think a democrat congress would be able to fix.
Also, the low GDP has nothing to do with an obstructionist "republican congress" and you know it. It's because of globalization and the fact that the U.S. no longer has the highest quality resources (educated manpower) in the world. Other countries are now better educated than us, and will work more for less, and they are simply out doing us. We are losing the competition and our GDP is the scoreboard.
.
It's more likely government regulation and Crony Capitalism.
The United States remains mired in the ranks of the “mostly free,” the second-tier economic freedom status into which it dropped in 2010. America’s historically vibrant entrepreneurial growth is significantly hampered by intrusive, expensive, and often ineffective government policies in areas ranging from health care to energy to education. Government favoritism toward entrenched interests has hurt innovation and contributed to a lackluster recovery and stagnant income growth.
No, it's being replaced with Crony Capitalism which actually kills capitalism.
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.
