Politics

[zelezo vlk]

There must be a Thucydides quote for this Greatest Vs Baby Boomer generation argument. I'll look.

 

[Domina Nostra]

So naive. Social Security has always been funded by the current working and tax-paying population. It is not a promise to future generations. It is taking care of a previous generation. The Baby Boomers have honored their obligation and expect nothing more than what they were promised. We gladly paid our share. We took care of the "Greatest Generation" when they grew old and their health deteriorated. The problem with which you are faced is due largely to having a large number of people ready to collect on the promises made to them and a smaller pool of people currently paying into the system. I don't expect you personally to make up the difference. A change in our country's priorities would make more money available to meet the government's obligations. Less money spent on foreign aid and less money spent on the military would go a long way to gradually reducing the social security deficit. It would also help if everyone paid the same percentage of their wages into the social security system, something the wealthiest do not do considering the cap that exists for the wealthiest.

No one honored any obligations. People paid taxes because they were required to, no one had any choice at all. They will collect because the law remains on the books.

And you "expect" more than will be possible for your children and grandchildren to receive. I am not sure why that does not, at the very least, give you something to think about. Your generation got out of a well-intentioned pyramid scheme on time, but some later generation will not. You don't have to be so self-righteous about ending up on the good side of things.

The fact is a system was created that worked relatively well based on one set of numbers (birth rates, life expectancies, cost of living, etc), but can no longer be expected to work in the future. As your post suggests, the boomers, as a whole, have no intention on sharing the costs of that mistake.

 

[GoIrish41]

No one honored any obligations. People paid taxes because they were required to, no one had any choice at all. They will collect because the law remains on the books.

And you "expect" more than will be possible for your children and grandchildren to receive. I am not sure why that does not, at the very least, give you something to think about. Your generation got out of a well-intentioned pyramid scheme on time, but some later generation will not. You don't have to be so self-righteous about ending up on the good side of things.

The fact is a system was created that worked relatively well based on one set of numbers (birth rates, life expectancies, cost of living, etc), but can no longer be expected to work in the future. As your post suggests, the boomers, as a whole, have no intention on sharing the costs of that mistake.

This is not exactly correct. The program would be fine if it was not looted by lawmakers. It isn't in peril because the numbers stopped working.

 

[pkt77242]

The eternal lameness of reading Reagan's mind: Column

 

[dshans]

I'm befuddled by the Reagan idolatry. Many of his policies were disastrous. Think Iran-Contra. While he may not have been the ultimate author, he was certainly the penultimate in that he allowed his minions free reign to make insidious "Deals with the 'Devil'." Was there some sub rosa chit chat going on to help Reagan defeat Carter to ensure the release of US hostages?

His attitude toward social security and its subsequent erosion leaves us where we are today. "Pre Tax this and Pre tax that" deductions that favored corporations with little to no real (marginal or direct) benefit to the individual taxpayer.

Does it surprise that the Food Stamp program is under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture? As much as it and adjuncts aid the poor and impoverished it subsidizes, helps stabilize and bolsters the agricultural markets. Think free government cheese of some decades ago. Sadly today's ag market benefits the likes of Conagra, Monsanto and Cargill more than the bucolic family farm. In part because productive farmland was suddenly assessed for tax purposes at pie-in-the-sky development evaluations, thus making the small farm ripe for the picking.

Apologies. I've possibly rambled too long. As one of the vilified "Boomers" I am insulted and (kinda, sorta) hurt. The whole enchilada is a continuum. Much of what Gen X, Millennials, and whatever follows do, and might, choose to complain about and criticize is a natural progression.

A great deal of what are points of contention and pissing and moaning were (and to some extent still are) put in place by segments of The Greatest Generation.

How many feel that over-priced cars, X-Boxes, Super Premium Cable, 3 of the latest 180"UHD OLED 4.24 with wireless connections and multi DVR capabilities are bare minimum "necessities," to hell with the monetary and social cost?

This song meant a great deal to me when I was young:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ml0Mtgw0mQk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now that I'm at the other end of the yardstick it still resonates in my gut.

 

[connor_in]

I'll just put this here and step away ...

Clinton: ‘I Am Tired Of The Mean-Spiritedness In Politics’ « CBS DC

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is starting to come up again, no surprise as it's getting to be campaign time. I have been mixed on the details of these ideas, but agree with the underlying reasoning. Thought I would place this old article here considering the discussion on Social Security.

The Empty Playground and the Welfare State | National Review Online

Incentives tend to change when activities are socialized, and provision for old age is no exception. Now it is possible to enjoy a free ride, as the economists say: Don’t raise children yourself, but benefit in old age from the fact that others have done so. Looking at it from the other direction: Parents contribute more to the programs than non-parents who pay the same amount of tax, but they get the same benefits. One ancient motivation for having children dramatically shrinks (although it does not vanish; many elderly people still get a lot of help from their kids). One might therefore expect that the introduction and expansion of old-age programs would lead people to have fewer children. One might further expect people to marry later in life, and fewer people to marry at all, as they envision lives with fewer, or no, children...............


The conceptually simplest way to eliminate the negative effects of entitlements on fertility would be to eliminate the entitlements. No way that’s happening. Some proposed reforms to entitlement programs would reduce the effect — but not all proposals would. Raising payroll taxes to finance future benefits would not help, and it could hurt. Partially converting Social Security into a system of private savings accounts, whatever the other merits of the idea, would not reduce the program’s implicit tax on childrearing and could, again, increase it. Reducing the size of entitlements would reduce their effects on family structure. Altering Social Security to slow the growth of benefits would be one such reform. But even a reined-in program would still entail a large, forced transfer of wealth from larger to smaller families. To prevent this transfer would require either paying parents more than non-parents in retirement or taxing them less beforehand. The rationale in either case would be that raising children is a contribution to the old-age programs just as taxes are, and the government should recognize it.

The tax-cut approach seems preferable: Just let families have the money now instead of taking it from them to return later. Robert Stein, an economist at First Trust Advisors who served in the Treasury Department during the George W. Bush administration, has calculated that a $5,000 tax credit per child would fully offset entitlements. (Stein, I should note, has exerted a large influence on my thinking on the issues considered in this essay, and he pointed me toward some of the research it draws on.) The logic of the tax credit would require that it be applied against payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Conservatives sometimes resist payroll-tax cuts on the theory that payroll taxes fund entitlements, and tax credits that reduce people’s contributions give people something for nothing. Obviously that argument, whatever its force generally, would have none in this case, since the premise of the policy is that children and payroll taxes both finance old-age programs. If a childless couple making $100,000 has a total federal tax bill of $30,000, a similarly situated couple with two kids should pay $20,000. A couple that has no tax liability, on the other hand, shouldn’t get an annual $5,000 check for each child they have. That arrangement would enable them to start getting their own free ride: receiving pension benefits without having contributed through either children or taxes.

Unlike subsidizing day care or forcing companies to offer generous parental leave, an enlarged child credit would have an unequivocally positive effect on fertility. Families of three might often use the money for day care; of four, to move one parent from full-time to part-time employment; of five, to get a slightly bigger house; and of all sizes, to bank for future educational expenses. The choice would be theirs.

The social-science literature on the effects of the tax treatment of parents on fertility finds mixed results. Papers have found that tax benefits for children have raised fertility significantly in Quebec, in France, and in Israel. Research on the U.S. has tended (though not uniformly) to find small effects. The effects could be non-linear: Quintupling the existing $1,000 child credit could have an effect more than proportionally larger than the modest policies so far studied. The goal of the credit, it should be remembered, is not to bribe Americans to have more children than they want. Rather it is to rectify the government’s bias against children, which leaves families with children bearing an unjustifiably large share of the tax burden.

 

[RDU Irish]

Child tax credit starts phasing out at $110,000 for a married couple. At $5k per kid and a non-refundable credit, most families would be paying zero income tax under $110k and the marginal increase over $110k would be incredible.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Child tax credit starts phasing out at $110,000 for a married couple. At $5k per kid and a non-refundable credit, most families would be paying zero income tax under $110k and the marginal increase over $110k would be incredible.

Which is why I tried to focus more on the premise rather than the math. Conceptually, it makes sense. Details are pesky tho.

 

[RDU Irish]

AMT has a tendency to bitch slap the tax credit too.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm befuddled by the Reagan idolatry. Many of his policies were disastrous. Think Iran-Contra. While he may not have been the ultimate author, he was certainly the penultimate in that he allowed his minions free reign to make insidious "Deals with the 'Devil'." Was there some sub rosa chit chat going on to help Reagan defeat Carter to ensure the release of US hostages?

His attitude toward social security and its subsequent erosion leaves us where we are today. "Pre Tax this and Pre tax that" deductions that favored corporations with little to no real (marginal or direct) benefit to the individual taxpayer.

Does it surprise that the Food Stamp program is under the aegis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture? As much as it and adjuncts aid the poor and impoverished it subsidizes, helps stabilize and bolsters the agricultural markets. Think free government cheese of some decades ago. Sadly today's ag market benefits the likes of Conagra, Monsanto and Cargill more than the bucolic family farm. In part because productive farmland was suddenly assessed for tax purposes at pie-in-the-sky development evaluations, thus making the small farm ripe for the picking.

Apologies. I've possibly rambled too long. As one of the vilified "Boomers" I am insulted and (kinda, sorta) hurt. The whole enchilada is a continuum. Much of what Gen X, Millennials, and whatever follows do, and might, choose to complain about and criticize is a natural progression.

A great deal of what are points of contention and pissing and moaning were (and to some extent still are) put in place by segments of The Greatest Generation.

How many feel that over-priced cars, X-Boxes, Super Premium Cable, 3 of the latest 180"UHD OLED 4.24 with wireless connections and multi DVR capabilities are bare minimum "necessities," to hell with the monetary and social cost?

This song meant a great deal to me when I was young:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ml0Mtgw0mQk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now that I'm at the other end of the yardstick it still resonates in my gut.

Great song. Have not heard it in years. Thanks.

 

[ACamp1900]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[connor_in]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Surprised no one has brought this up:

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The New Yorker

 

[phgreek]

Surprised no one has brought this up:

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company - The New Yorker

It is unpleasant, and it is about a Democrat

personally, I feel like there is some smoke...as always around the Clintons...but what is their intent...what were they trying to do. I gotta say if they were really trying to pump up their Non-profit and they can show legit payouts to account for all the money...I mean its time people used their profit potential to benefit others...if more people took that shit seriously, the tax code might not be used so damned much to achieve charity.

If the non-profit is a shell, it will be clear...I realize the Clinton machhine will do everything they can to create doubt...but honest people will figure it out. The refiling of multiple tax years makes me raise an eyebrow, for sure. The timing of things I've heard so far makes me raise an eyebrow as well. Many, many things to come out

the question...Will Justice even look?

 

[PerthDomer]

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

 

[NDgradstudent]

Welcome to America in 2015, where people are awarded $135,000 for the "mental rape" they experienced for not being baked a cake. The expression of certain opinions is now defined by lefties as "mental rape" or "microagression," and criminalized. How long until our faith itself is outlawed?

 

[Circa]

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Reminds me of chickens and cocaine.

 

[Grahambo]

Great song. Have not heard it in years. Thanks.

He's a terrorist.

 

[GoIrish41]

He's a terrorist.

All aboard the peace train, my friend. I just like the music.

 

[connor_in]

It is unpleasant, and it is about a Democrat

personally, I feel like there is some smoke...as always around the Clintons...but what is their intent...what were they trying to do. I gotta say if they were really trying to pump up their Non-profit and they can show legit payouts to account for all the money...I mean its time people used their profit potential to benefit others...if more people took that shit seriously, the tax code might not be used so damned much to achieve charity.

If the non-profit is a shell, it will be clear...I realize the Clinton machhine will do everything they can to create doubt...but honest people will figure it out. The refiling of multiple tax years makes me raise an eyebrow, for sure. The timing of things I've heard so far makes me raise an eyebrow as well. Many, many things to come out

the question...Will Justice even look?

To answer your last line...no, not really

 

[phgreek]

To answer your last line...no, not really

To me, therein lies the biggest crime. Clintons are always going to be who they are. They are walking symbols of my expectations of all politicians. It is up to the justice department to make sure Clintons do not use government positions to feather their nest and endanger national security along the way.

Will they...seems like they won't. ...they and the IRS are racing for the hammer and sickle seal of approval. SMH.

 

[Buster Bluth]

To me, therein lies the biggest crime. Clintons are always going to be who they are. They are walking symbols of my expectations of all politicians. It is up to the justice department to make sure Clintons do not use government positions to feather their nest and endanger national security along the way.

Will they...seems like they won't.

That's just it though, it's all (well, most) politicians. I think the Clintons are generally awful people, but is it really any worse than those on the other side lining up to bow down to the wishes of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or the few other billionaires who now decide elections?

...they and the IRS are racing for the hammer and sickle seal of approval. SMH.

I would love it if you'd expand on this, please.

 

[INLaw]

That's just it though, it's all (well, most) politicians. I think the Clintons are generally awful people, but is it really any worse than those on the other side lining up to bow down to the wishes of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or the few other billionaires who now decide elections?



I would love it if you'd expand on this, please.

An accusation/insinuation I have seen swirling around this involves a connection to a canadian businessman that was CEO for oneuranium which apparently is a russian firm maybe even owned or significantly owned by Putin. In theory it somehow controls like half of our uranium production. Stretching it to its extreme its corruption leading to russia having our uranium and selling it to Iran. Some smoke to it involving clandestine meetings with the president of Kazakhstan who is apparently quite villainous.

 

[phgreek]

That's just it though, it's all (well, most) politicians. I think the Clintons are generally awful people, but is it really any worse than those on the other side lining up to bow down to the wishes of Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or the few other billionaires who now decide elections?

Yea ...I mean I said as much...every politician has an agenda other than the job they are asking us to give them...sometimes the agenda is a pre-req to the job...ie money people define you...sometimes people go to protect something of "theirs"...either way, they all pretty much suck it.

I would love it if you'd expand on this, please.

Symbol of Tyranny...The IRS has acted so poorly in recent years it is almost funny...do I need to go into details? As for the DOJ...when you fail to take seriously the kind of behaviors coming out of the IRS and other branches...just based on their role, Justice perpetuates and might I say endorses it. So I see Tyranny just around the bend when big chunks of government are unaccountable activists...especially the IRS. Such a no-no it is beyond words. Can recall days where Federal Employees would get hammered viciously by an Air Force officer for breathing anything remotely political while on a Federal Installation...now...hell, the culture is anything goes...SMH.

 

[Wild Bill]

IRS wasted $5.6B on bogus Obama stimulus tax credits: Audit - Washington Times

“The IRS still does not have effective processes to identify erroneous claims for education credits,” said J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, who said he’s repeatedly warned the IRS about the problem but “many of the deficiencies TIGTA previously identified still exist.”

What processes? Make the institution collecting tuition submit a form to the IRS, no different than an employer submits a W2. Refuse the tax credit unless the proper documentation is received. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying but how difficult can this really be to prevent?

Ms. Holland blamed a lack of money for her agency’s inability to do more, and said they needed to limit their efforts to tax returns that had the highest risk of errors and the best chance of reclaiming money.

So they need more tax payer money to prevent giving away tax payer money to thieves. Sounds about right.

 

[pkt77242]

IRS wasted $5.6B on bogus Obama stimulus tax credits: Audit - Washington Times



What processes? Make the institution collecting tuition submit a form to the IRS, no different than an employer submits a W2. Refuse the tax credit unless the proper documentation is received. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying but how difficult can this really be to prevent?



So they need more tax payer money to prevent giving away tax payer money to thieves. Sounds about right.

Actually it makes sense. The IRS enforcement budget was cut from 5.9 Billion in 2010 to 5 billion in 2013. During that same time revenue from audits went down by 7 billion.

Tax Analysts -- To Fix the IRS, You Have to Fund It

 

[Buster Bluth]

So they need more tax payer money to prevent giving away tax payer money to thieves. Sounds about right.

You're aware that the IRS budget has been slashed over the last few years right?

Jon Oliver had a funny take on the situation:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nn_Zln_4pA8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Wild Bill]

Actually it makes sense. The IRS enforcement budget was cut from 5.9 Billion in 2010 to 5 billion in 2013. During that same time revenue from audits went down by 7 billion.

Tax Analysts -- To Fix the IRS, You Have to Fund It

You wouldn't need an extensive audit to stop this fraud. These are likely simple 1040s that can be reviewed in the matter of moments by an agent.

You're aware that the IRS budget has been slashed over the last few years right?

Jon Oliver had a funny take on the situation:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nn_Zln_4pA8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm aware.

Someone at the IRS is reviewing the basics of every 1040 submitted, i.e., comparing the gross income listed compared to the gross income listed on their W2. What expense or cost would they incur if they require the institution who collected the tuition to submit a form verifying the tax filer paid $xx.xx amount of tuition during the tax year and then requiring the tax filer attach the form to their 1040? Reject any credit payment until the forms are received. Whatever the cost, I'm sure it would not take $5 billion per year to resolve.

 

[NDgradstudent]

You're aware that the IRS budget has been slashed over the last few years right?

It couldn't have been that bad- they still had time to hassle conservative groups.