Social Security Funds

[Ed in Tampa]

Today's paper listed the pork in the reecent bipartisan fiscal agreement the saved us from the Fiscal cliff.
The Article titled Fiscal Pork listed my comments in red
$78million tas subsidies for NASCAR track owners. Those poor dear need more money.
$59 million for algae growers producing biofuel which they will sell to us at astronomical prices.
$62 Million tax credit for employers in American Samoas designed to benefit Starkist Tuna. Hey if it helps charlie the tuna it is good isn't it.
$222 million in tax rebates for rum makers. No comment this is so ridiculous.
$248 Million in tax credit for flim makers. As if Hollywood needed more money.
$2500 tax credit for purchases of electric scooters. Medicare was buying them anyhow.

Does anyone wonder why a deal was so long in the making?

[joshh]

Not to mention, when taxes are cut, government revenue rises because the tax cuts encourage more economic activity. Happens every time.

I completely agree, tax cuts for the middle class grow the economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not.

Today's paper listed the pork in the reecent bipartisan fiscal agreement the saved us from the Fiscal cliff.
Does anyone wonder why a deal was so long in the making?

They had to barter out who gets what while shafting us. Then it took time to figure out how to spin it so that each side can claim they fought the good fight for us lowly peasants

[dusty]

This has nothing to do with the title of this thread but then much of this thread doesn't either.

If the wealthy are not the ones contributing to the growth of this economy, who is? If you are in need of a job, I doubt that it is someone like me (the middle class) to whom you will apply. It certainly will not be someone earning less than I (the welfare class).

I think you are going to have to make application to someone who will be able to pay for your wages and benefits. It is likely that that individual has financial ties to "the wealthy".

From that, I conclude that the wealthy are at least indirectly responsible for growing the economy.

Now some will argue that it is the money that you and I spend that grows the economy and I understand that argument and somewhat agree with it. But, if yours and my funds are cut off somewhere upstream (by the wealthy) and do not flow down to us, we have nothing to spend to help grow the economy.

This is not intended to be an argument...just my way of looking at the money tree. My mother always told me that money does not grow on a tree in the back yard. I now think I understand what she was saying.

[dickg1]

This has nothing to do with the title of this thread but then much of this thread doesn't either.

If the wealthy are not the ones contributing to the growth of this economy, who is? If you are in need of a job, I doubt that it is someone like me (the middle class) to whom you will apply. It certainly will not be someone earning less than I (the welfare class).

I think you are going to have to make application to someone who will be able to pay for your wages and benefits. It is likely that that individual has financial ties to "the wealthy".

From that, I conclude that the wealthy are at least indirectly responsible for growing the economy.

Now some will argue that it is the money that you and I spend that grows the economy and I understand that argument and somewhat agree with it. But, if yours and my funds are cut off somewhere upstream (by the wealthy) and do not flow down to us, we have nothing to spend to help grow the economy.

This is not intended to be an argument...just my way of looking at the money tree. My mother always told me that money does not grow on a tree in the back yard. I now think I understand what she was saying.

I have been a conservative Libertarian for many years now so please accept this in that light.

If the wealthy are those that provide jobs and it is the wealthy that have had the benefit of a lower tax rate for these many years and if an increase in their tax rate will reduce the opportunity for the wealthy to provide jobs, WHERE are the jobs that the lower tax rate afforded?

Dick

[dusty]

I have been a conservative Libertarian for many years now so please accept this in that light.

If the wealthy are those that provide jobs and it is the wealthy that have had the benefit of a lower tax rate for these many years and if an increase in their tax rate will reduce the opportunity for the wealthy to provide jobs, WHERE are the jobs that the lower tax rate afforded?

Dick

I don't know! But if the reverse theory works, now that the wealthy are being taxed more the problem should go away. The unemployed middle class will get jobs and all will be well.

[heathicus]

I completely agree, tax cuts for the middle class grow the economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy do not.

What I specifically said was it increases government revenue. And yes, tax cuts "for the wealthy" does that.

The real question today is: “How do changes in income tax rates affect federal receipts?” Clearly there are deductions and credits which also influence the result. But in the final analysis, the percentage that taxpayers pay is the key statistic.

The following graph clearly reveals the answer. The red line represents the top marginal tax bracket while the blue line shows the total amount of Federal government revenue each year. There are two salient points here. First, as the graph illustrates, as tax rates declined, government revenue increased. Second, there is a strong negative correlation between the two. To review, correlation measures the relationship between two sets of data. The scale ranges from negative one to positive one. A correlation of positive one indicates that the two data sets move in concert with each other. A correlation of negative one indicates that as one set of data moves up, or down, the other moves in the opposite direction. Using the data from 1913 through the end of 2011, the correlation between the maximum marginal income tax bracket and total Federal receipts is a negative 0.50. In simple terms, when taxes are cut, Federal revenue has a very strong tendency to rise! And when taxes are raised, government revenue has a strong tendency to fall.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... t-revenue/

So explain how tax cuts for the wealth does NOT grow the economy? And even if it's true, why does that mean that certain people shouldn't get to keep more of THEIR money that THEY earned?

And to tell you where I'm coming from, I'm a libertarian and recently have become a Libertarian. I'd like to see the income tax cut to zero, the IRS shut down, and be replaced with a national sales tax. And I'd like to see the Federal Reserve go away.

[Ed in Tampa]

I have been a conservative Libertarian for many years now so please accept this in that light.

If the wealthy are those that provide jobs and it is the wealthy that have had the benefit of a lower tax rate for these many years and if an increase in their tax rate will reduce the opportunity for the wealthy to provide jobs, WHERE are the jobs that the lower tax rate afforded?

Dick

I know, I know oh let me answer, I know.
The jobs are all overseas because the rich aren't happy with billions, they believe they need 10's of billions.
I saw a $150 million dollar private yacht on TV today. Do you realize just to take it for a day cruise cost more than most of the middle class America makes in a year.
Is that perhaps just a little excessive? How about you only buy a $10 million dollar yacht and bring the jobs back to this country.

We are back to my word again GREED!

[joshh]

And even if it's true, why does that mean that certain people shouldn't get to keep more of THEIR money that THEY earned?

I agree completely, they deserve to pay the same rate as me. Too bad their tax rate is 15% or less and mine is 25% or more.

[dickg1]

I know, I know oh let me answer, I know.
The jobs are all overseas because the rich aren't happy with billions, they believe they need 10's of billions.
I saw a $150 million dollar private yacht on TV today. Do you realize just to take it for a day cruise cost more than most of the middle class America makes in a year.
Is that perhaps just a little excessive? How about you only buy a $10 million dollar yacht and bring the jobs back to this country.

We are back to my word again GREED!

Then, it follows, that the Republican's argument about lower taxes for the wealthy is specious. It's no wonder that the Democrats can argue successfully for higher taxes for the wealthy, the lower tax rate did nothing for jobs!

BTW, re: the Social Security fund. It was LBJ (a Democrat) who convinced Congress to transfer money from the SSA account to the general fund and replace that money with US Treasury notes. He did this to lower the deficit during the Vietnam war. LBJ's mantra at that time was that "We can have guns and butter".

Now that the "employment tax" does not cover the SS outlay in full, the Government must redeem some of the treasury notes - but has no money to do so. Remember in December 2011 the President stated that without an increase in the debt ceiling there would be no money to pay the military AND SS recipients? It was the stealing of our money by LBJ and Congress that began convincing me that I could not support either party, and now they have the audacity to call OUR money an entitlement. The money in the SS account is contributed by you and your employer. The Federal Government's contribution is the interest paid on the money that has been borrowed from us. As has been stated we have the best politicians in government that money can buy!

Dick

[Ed in Tampa]

Then, it follows, that the Republican's argument about lower taxes for the wealthy is specious. It's no wonder that the Democrats can argue successfully for higher taxes for the wealthy, the lower tax rate did nothing for jobs!

BTW, re: the Social Security fund. It was LBJ (a Democrat) who convinced Congress to transfer money from the SSA account to the general fund and replace that money with US Treasury notes. He did this to lower the deficit during the Vietnam war. LBJ's mantra at that time was that "We can have guns and butter".

Now that the "employment tax" does not cover the SS outlay in full, the Government must redeem some of the treasury notes - but has no money to do so. Remember in December 2011 the President stated that without an increase in the debt ceiling there would be no money to pay the military AND SS recipients? It was the stealing of our money by LBJ and Congress that began convincing me that I could not support either party, and now they have the audacity to call OUR money an entitlement. The money in the SS account is contributed by you and your employer. The Federal Government's contribution is the interest paid on the money that has been borrowed from us. As has been stated we have the best politicians in government that money can buy!

Dick

Why take funds from the rich to make up for bad decisions of the past. Everyone had their head in the sand when it was taking place so it is eveyone's problem.

What need to be done is the media needs to list every company that has taken jobs out of this country and then the American public needs to boycott them. Also the media should also list every American Company that got rich because of a legislative PORK and again every American should boycott them.
YOu know what our deep thinking American public will ignore it all and still shop price.
It all comes back to GREED and we are all guilty of it in one way or another.