Politics

[Buster Bluth]

Want to fix social security? Right now the cap on it is $110k of income meaning after that amount you don't any more SS tax. My solution is eliminate the cap so millionaires and billionaires pay into significantly. Maybe you keep the cap at 110k and then have 1 to 2 percent tax for income beyond the cap. It will make social security solvent forever.

This is clueless.

It'd make more sense to tax it: $500,000 < TAX < $110,000.

 

[Black Irish]

Want to fix social security? Right now the cap on it is $110k of income meaning after that amount you don't any more SS tax. My solution is eliminate the cap so millionaires and billionaires pay into significantly. Maybe you keep the cap at 110k and then have 1 to 2 percent tax for income beyond the cap. It will make social security solvent forever.

How about raising the eligibility age, something that hasn't been done since the program's inception in the thirties? How about making it more of a need-based welfare program, which was the original intent, instead of it being a one-size-fits-all entitlement? Seriously, why should able-bodied people be encouraged to quit their jobs and collect government checks? Especially if those people are already financially solvent with: pensions, a paid off house, savings, an investment portfolio, other assets. People who are already set for their golden years don't need to get a check from Uncle Sam every month. Social Security should be for the old people who are poor and too feeble to take care of themselves.

 

[Bluto]

So...you guys fix the economy yet? Kidding. Anyhow, did anyone see that article on Cuban immigrants...uh I mean refugees on NPR and how they get all kinds of free stuff? That was pretty interesting. I'll see if I can find the link.

Also, why the hell isn't Puerto Rico either allowed to become an independent nation or a full blown state? I can think of a reason but wan to see what you all think.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

How about raising the eligibility age, something that hasn't been done since the program's inception in the thirties? How about making it more of a need-based welfare program, which was the original intent, instead of it being a one-size-fits-all entitlement? Seriously, why should able-bodied people be encouraged to quit their jobs and collect government checks? Especially if those people are already financially solvent with: pensions, a paid off house, savings, an investment portfolio, other assets. People who are already set for their golden years don't need to get a check from Uncle Sam every month. Social Security should be for the old people who are poor and too feeble to take care of themselves.

I think it's reasonable to do means testing. If people don't need as much, they probably shouldn't get as much. We can talk about eligibility as well...the argument being that people live longer than they used to. However, lots of the people who are most in need are those who have worked tough, physically demanding jobs their whole lives. They're broken down by the time they reach retirement age.

I think raising the cap is more reasonable. I pay a larger portion of my income (because every dime is subject to payroll tax) than the very wealthy. I do find that odd.

 

[chicago51]

Why so much love for the millionaires and billionaires on this board? We already have most generous tax structure in the world. It is not like if we get a little tuffer on them they are just going to leave the country.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Why so much love for the millionaires and billionaires on this board? We already have most generous tax structure in the world. It is not like if we get a little tuffer on them they are just going to leave the country.

Why all the hate? Why all the envy? Why all the jealousy and eagerness to "tax the rich"? Funny...we always hear about millionaires and billionaires. But people whose income is far less than that see those millionaires' and billionaires' tax rates.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Why all the hate? Why all the envy? Why all the jealousy and eagerness to "tax the rich"? Funny...we always hear about millionaires and billionaires. But people whose income is far less than that see those millionaires' and billionaires' tax rates.

Our tax rates on the wealthy are historically low. The highest bracket during the Eisenhower administration was around 90%. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but I don't think proposing slight increases or trying to get rid of loopholes only available to the wealthy (i.e., those who can afford to pay a team of lawyers to find them) is "hate" or "envy."

From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes - Yahoo! News

 

[chicago51]

Our tax rates on the wealthy are historically low. The highest bracket during the Eisenhower administration was around 90%. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but I don't think proposing slight increases or trying to get rid of loopholes only available to the wealthy (i.e., those who can afford to pay a team of lawyers to find them) is "hate" or "envy."

From Eisenhower to Obama: What the Wealthiest Americans Pay in Taxes - Yahoo! News

Progressive budget calls for new tax brackets for those making over one million and one billion dollars respectively.

Right now those over 400k pay 39.6 percent. Under progressive proposal millionaires would pay 41 percent and after you hit a billion you are taxed 49 percent. This will bring down the debt and allow for some investment in the economy.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Progressive budget calls for new tax brackets for those making over one million and one billion dollars respectively.

Right now those over 400k pay 39.6 percent. Under progressive proposal millionaires would pay 41 percent and after you hit a billion you are taxed 49 percent. This will bring down the debt and allow for some investment in the economy.

Isn't "millionaire" defined as >$250,000/yr? Again, it would be asinine to raise their taxes, they own the small businesses.

 

[chicago51]

Isn't "millionaire" defined as >$250,000/yr? Again, it would be asinine to raise their taxes, they own the small businesses.

No the tax bracket in this proposal which doesn't have a chance anyway is a million dollars. Yes it would be asinine to go after the those under 500k for more taxes.

 

[Bluto]

Here's my plan to fix my personal economic situation. I'm going to max out my credit card buying a variety of hard goods (consumer electronics, furniture, etc). I'm going to turn around and sell those goods on Ebay and Craiglist for cash. I'm going to take that cash to the poker tables. Since I'm a net positive cash winner at poker over the past 5 years, I have an expectation to win. I'll will then use my winnings to pay off my debt and the excess money will go towards bettering my personal financial situation for the foreseeable future.

That plan makes about as much sense as pumping a bunch of government money into the economy and hoping that the multiplier effects somehow both 1.) kick start our economy immediately 2.) generate enough revenue to pay off the debt and interest accumulated, with enough left over to sustain a long term robust economy. It may make sense to some on paper, but do you really want to make that kind of a gamble in reality?

Actually, a bunch of economists disagree with you on thay second point including one who won a Nobel Prize, but what do they know. A better analogy might be a business owner who takes out credit at historically low rates to reinvest in his company to fix a bunch of his equipment that might be outdated and or in disrepair thus enabling his company to continue to be on its A game.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Actually, a bunch of economists disagree with you on thay second point including one who won a Nobel Prize, but what do they know.

Consider those Nobel folks gave Obama a Nobel Prize...probably not much.

 

[Bluto]

Here's my plan to fix my personal economic situation. I'm going to max out my credit card buying a variety of hard goods (consumer electronics, furniture, etc). I'm going to turn around and sell those goods on Ebay and Craiglist for cash. I'm going to take that cash to the poker tables. Since I'm a net positive cash winner at poker over the past 5 years, I have an expectation to win. I'll will then use my winnings to pay off my debt and the excess money will go towards bettering my personal financial situation for the foreseeable future.

That plan makes about as much sense as pumping a bunch of government money into the economy and hoping that the multiplier effects somehow both 1.) kick start our economy immediately 2.) generate enough revenue to pay off the debt and interest accumulated, with enough left over to sustain a long term robust economy. It may make sense to some on paper, but do you really want to make that kind of a gamble in reality?

Consider those Nobel folks gave Obama a Nobel Prize...probably not much.

Dude you're like clockwork. Lol. Krugman, et al are dopes. What do they know with their fancy degrees and prizes and cushy professorships?

 

[scUM Hater]

If the USA was to tax vbucks, oh the possibilities.

 

[potownhero]

SMH....Krugman

SMH....Krugman

Dude you're like clockwork. Lol. Krugman, et al are dopes. What do they know with their fancy degrees and prizes and cushy professorships?

Down Argentina Way - NYTimes.com

Argentina Freezes Supermarket Prices To Halt Soaring Inflation; Chaos To Follow | Zero Hedge

Looks like Krugman got another one wrong.

 

[Bluto]

Argentina Freezes Supermarket Prices To Halt Soaring Inflation; Chaos To Follow | Zero Hedge

Looks like Krugman got another one wrong.

An article written by "Tyler Durden". Awesome source bro. Lol. That movie he starred in was awesome too!

 

[Buster Bluth]

Dude you're like clockwork. Lol. Krugman, et al are dopes. What do they know with their fancy degrees and prizes and cushy professorships?

Krugman is a smart guy and all, but his word is not gospel. He is not omniscient and economics is hotly debated all around. It's not like conservative economics is akin to denying global warming.

 

[Bluto]

Krugman is a smart guy and all, but his word is not gospel. He is not omniscient and economics is hotly debated all around. It's not like conservative economics is akin to denying global warming.

Good one dude. I hear ya. He's not the only economist who's works I have read and or pay attention to. I don't always agree with you but I do respect your opinions and you do provide some good insight. So cheers. The Tyler Durden thing though? Yeesh.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Huh?

 

[chicago51]

?

 

[Black Irish]

Actually, a bunch of economists disagree with you on thay second point including one who won a Nobel Prize, but what do they know. A better analogy might be a business owner who takes out credit at historically low rates to reinvest in his company to fix a bunch of his equipment that might be outdated and or in disrepair thus enabling his company to continue to be on its A game.

Wow, if this is the better scenario, then I guess I was being overly generous in my assumption as to what massive public borrowing and "investment" would do for our economy. What "equipment" would we be fixing by going further into debt so we can put people on the government payroll. Sure, we can update our infrastructure, but that doesn't exactly bring in sustained revenue. And if we made this massive investment, wouldn't all of this infrastructure work be contracted out anyway? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't exactly see how you are disproving my point, if you even are trying to.

 

[Bluto]

Huh?

Lol. The guy who posted the retort to Paul Krugman. The article's author was Tyler Durden. That's what I was referring to. Haha.

 

[Bluto]

Wow, if this is the better scenario, then I guess I was being overly generous in my assumption as to what massive public borrowing and "investment" would do for our economy. What "equipment" would we be fixing by going further into debt so we can put people on the government payroll. Sure, we can update our infrastructure, but that doesn't exactly bring in sustained revenue. And if we made this massive investment, wouldn't all of this infrastructure work be contracted out anyway? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't exactly see how you are disproving my point, if you even are trying to.

Apparently there are a large number of bridges that are about to collapse in the US. Californias water infrastucture sure could use modernazation. Anyhow, sure improved infrastructure brings in sustained revenue. The internet is proof of that. So are the ports of Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, what's left of the University of California System vis a vis research and development, that is what allows the city of New Orleans to exist and on and on. It's what enables business to function in a more efficient and competative manner.

 

[Black Irish]

Why so much love for the millionaires and billionaires on this board? We already have most generous tax structure in the world. It is not like if we get a little tuffer on them they are just going to leave the country.

Why do we need to get tougher on them? What have they done wrong? That's where all the "love" for the rich comes from. The demagoguery from the Left about making the rich "pay their fair share" just smacks of ignorant class warfare rhetoric. Most of these people have gotten their wealth from hard work, dedication, smarts, and guts. So these people get to the top and have a very natural desire to preserve and protect what is theirs and suddenly they are bad people. Maybe the rich aren't crazy about paying more in taxes because they are tired of contributing to the colossal amount of waste inherent in our federal budget. You know how so many lefties decried "Bush's wars" and how expensive and wasteful they were? Why is that anger over wasteful government spending justifiable but the rich not wanting to see their tax rates go up to finance more bloated federal spending so wrong? Maybe it shouldn't be all on them to finance a welfare and entitlement state that they take no part in.

 

[Black Irish]

Sure improved infrastructure brings in sustained revenue. The internet is proof of that. So are the portsof Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, what's left of the University of California System vis a vis research and development and on and on. It's what enables business to function in a more efficient and competative manner.

How is the internet a good example of what we are talking about? Ports are a bad example, they exist for private enterprise, like airports. And those improvements get passed on to the private companies that use them anyway. The university system? R&D facilities get a ton of private money to operate with, especially in they are doing anything that can make money. I don't think these are good examples. When I hear the Left talk about using deficit spending to create "shovel-ready" jobs, it seems that they are talking about roads, bridges, and other public works projects. Necessary? Sure. But not exactly a revenue stream for the economy at large.

 

[Bluto]

How is the internet a good example of what we are talking about? Ports are a bad example, they exist for private enterprise, like airports. And those improvements get passed on to the private companies that use them anyway. The university system? R&D facilities get a ton of private money to operate with, especially in they are doing anything that can make money. I don't think these are good examples. When I hear the Left talk about using deficit spending to create "shovel-ready" jobs, it seems that they are talking about roads, bridges, and other public works projects. Necessary? Sure. But not exactly a revenue stream for the economy at large.

Ok. Let's eliminate all of the publicly developed infrastructure (dams, bridges, railways, water delivery, power delivery and on and on) and see how awesome our economy would be. The Congo might be a good example of how our country and economy might function.

 

[chicago51]

Why do we need to get tougher on them? What have they done wrong? That's where all the "love" for the rich comes from. The demagoguery from the Left about making the rich "pay their fair share" just smacks of ignorant class warfare rhetoric. Most of these people have gotten their wealth from hard work, dedication, smarts, and guts. So these people get to the top and have a very natural desire to preserve and protect what is theirs and suddenly they are bad people. Maybe the rich aren't crazy about paying more in taxes because they are tired of contributing to the colossal amount of waste inherent in our federal budget. You know how so many lefties decried "Bush's wars" and how expensive and wasteful they were? Why is that anger over wasteful government spending justifiable but the rich not wanting to see their tax rates go up to finance more bloated federal spending so wrong? Maybe it shouldn't be all on them to finance a welfare and entitlement state that they take no part in.

I am for eliminating wasteful spending. I don't consider entitlement benefits wasteful. Not to say there isn't inefficiency and waste in Medicare that shouldn't be fixed.

I am okay with Obama rationale 50/50 in tax revenue and spending cuts. We have 1.4 trillionand raised 700 billion over a ten year period. Another 400 billion saved in interest put us at 2.5 trillion over ten years. We need to get to 4 trillion over ten years to stabilize the deficit with GDP growth. So we should get remaining 1.5 trillion with a 50/50 approach.

Pass Senator Sanders tax reform bill which will end camen islands tax havens and tax breaks to oil companies. It will raise 600 billion in revenue. Then do rest in cuts to the military and Medicare reform which is needed. Medicare is one of big drivers of our debt so reform is needed with Medicare.

I would like millionaire and billionaire tax brackets at 41 and 49 percent but that is not realistic in terms of it passing. I think the proposal above is. As a liberal I don't want any domestic cuts. Obama is willing to go 50/50 and the GOP should meet him halfway.

As for why don't like they billionaires. It is because they hide money overseas. Spend money to kill unions. At times don't provide health care or pay decent wages.

 

[Downinthebend]

Ok. Let's eliminate all of the publicly developed infrastructure (dams, bridges, railways, water delivery, power delivery and on and on) and see how awesome our economy would be. The Congo might be a good example of how our country and economy might function.

You're bouncing wildly to both extremes lol. I don't think anyone except some extreme keynesesians are advocating blowing up our infrastructure (because we could then employ a bunch of people to fix it!).

If the argument is that we have bad roads-- let the be the argument. If the argument is that we need to employ people for the sake of employing people (not to do anything productive) let that be the argument.

If the argument is employment, I say we pay for shovels then pay for ditches and filling in the ditches.

if the argument is need-- I don't think that we have a infrastructure crisis in this country.

I am for eliminating wasteful spending. I don't consider entitlement benefits wasteful. Not to say there isn't inefficiency and waste in Medicare that shouldn't be fixed.

I am okay with Obama rationale 50/50 in tax revenue and spending cuts. We have 1.4 trillionand raised 700 billion over a ten year period. Another 400 billion saved in interest put us at 2.5 trillion over ten years. We need to get to 4 trillion over ten years to stabilize the deficit with GDP growth. So we should get remaining 1.5 trillion with a 50/50 approach.

Pass Senator Sanders tax reform bill which will end camen islands tax havens and tax breaks to oil companies. It will raise 600 billion in revenue. Then do rest in cuts to the military and Medicare reform which is needed. Medicare is one of big drivers of our debt so reform is needed with Medicare.

I would like millionaire and billionaire tax brackets at 41 and 49 percent but that is not realistic in terms of it passing. I think the proposal above is. As a liberal I don't want any domestic cuts. Obama is willing to go 50/50 and the GOP should meet him halfway.

As for why don't like they billionaires. It is because they hide money overseas. Spend money to kill unions. At times don't provide health care or pay decent wages.

I'm against wasteful spending, and I'm against unconstitutional spending. Also, I can't really blame people for trying to save as much of their money as they can. I find it amusing when some people call such people unpatriotic or other absurd words a la what is currently happening in france-- (they raised the taxes on rich people to absurd levels.. and they consequently moved to the netherlands or other places lol).

 

[Bluto]

You're bouncing wildly to both extremes lol. I don't think anyone except some extreme keynesesians are advocating blowing up our infrastructure (because we could then employ a bunch of people to fix it!).

If the argument is that we have bad roads-- let the be the argument. If the argument is that we need to employ people for the sake of employing people (not to do anything productive) let that be the argument.

If the argument is employment, I say we pay for shovels then pay for ditches and filling in the ditches.

if the argument is need-- I don't think that we have a infrastructure crisis in this country.



I'm against wasteful spending, and I'm against unconstitutional spending. Also, I can't really blame people for trying to save as much of their money as they can. I find it amusing when some people call such people unpatriotic or other absurd words a la what is currently happening in france-- (they raised the taxes on rich people to absurd levels.. and they consequently moved to the netherlands or other places lol).

I'm not bouncing between anything. Dude said spending on public infrastructure is not a long term economic stimulus. It is because it is the foundation for everything that happens in a society. If you think there is not a "infrastructure" crisis in this country take one look at New Orleans post Katrina, New York post whatever storm just wrecked it, the Mid West which has been in the midst of one of the worst droughts since the dust bowl, the overdrawing of the Ogallala aquifer, the the power grid collapse on the East Coast in the early 2000's, the Sacremento River Delta, the collapse of West Coast Salmon populations due in large part to bad development and resource management and the Mississippi Delta in gerneral and I think you will find some pretty good counter points to that argument.

So the arguement is we have a jobs crisis and an infrastructure crisis in this country in my opinion. Why not borrow at historically low rates to kill two birds with one stone?

 

[BobD]

Yesterday the original poll for this thread had a total of 306 voters....307 today. My first thought was that someone in Florida finally figured out how to do it.