US household income disparity

Well since the system was seriously insolvent, the alternative was cutting the benefits -- where the poor and middle class get proportionally much more bang for the buck. So it is more accurately a forced saving system, not a tax.

And talk about fuzzy math 8.2% + 9.5% is a total tax rate of 17.7% (assuming for the sake of argument that SS is actually a tax and not a savings plan). By 1988 the total was 6.6% and 11.8% which is a total of 18.4%. So we are arguing about a 0.7% of income increase to maintain their SS benefit. Puhlease! Originally Posted by pjorourke

What I argue is that the surplue in SS made us NOT look at either curbing spending or increasing taxes to pay for DEFENSE increases and other spending to be fair.

Smoke and mirrors PJ, smoke and mirrors.

Its just a question of timing WTF. SS trust fund owns a whole bunch of T-Bills. As those bills are reduced, other spending (including Defense) has to come down.

And even with all those T-Bills (assuming they are worth $1 on the $1), SS is still insolvent at the current benefit levels.

How can you ignore the value of the SS benefits that are directly related to what you put in? That is like complaining that the grocery store taxed you to leave -- with your groceries.

...where the poor and middle class get proportionally much more bang for the buck. Originally Posted by pjorourke

The poor were trying to get a lot of bang for the buck in Arlington (home of Cowboys Stadium) recently. Unfortunately, it didn't work out well for some of them:

http://arlingtonpd.org/Prostitution/...rrests0610.pdf

And talk about fuzzy math... Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, please don't tell people they're not allowed to use fuzzy math! How else would some of these guys support their talking points?

A lot of fuzzy math is also used by those who talk about taxing the successful. Some of you liberals seem to pine for the days of 70% tax brackets, not realizing that they didn't do nearly as good a job of siphoning money out of the pockets of the wealthy as most people think.

Sure, they got more revenue out of people who earned high incomes but weren't very wealthy. But anyone with much net worth at all could wipe out most of his tax obligation with things such as accelerated depreciation on leveraged real estate investments. Back in those days, you were allowed to shelter salary and fee income with big deductions generated by assets earning "passive" income. That's no longer the case.

Another problem with those high tax rates, but which few people seem to understand, was that a lot of investors shoveled hundreds of billions of dollars into tax shelter-motivated partnerships that otherwise made little economic sense. When capital does not flow to its highest and best uses, everyone ends up getting hurt -- especially the not-so-rich.

Its just a question of timing WTF. SS trust fund owns a whole bunch of T-Bills. As those bills are reduced, other spending (including Defense) has to come down.
Originally Posted by pjorourke

Really, Do you really believe that?

And even with all those T-Bills (assuming they are worth $1 on the $1), SS is still insolvent at the current benefit levels. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Or Obama can due what Ronnie did, which is create a commission and raise the SS tax, increase the retirement age and try to get a handle on run a way health care costs. Wait Ronnie did do the later. But any common sense approach is met with shouts of ''Death Panels!". Not very helpful towards a solution.

You think the GOP would go along with any of Ronnie did in todays times?

How can you ignore the value of the SS benefits that are directly related to what you put in? That is like complaining that the grocery store taxed you to leave -- with your groceries. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I am not ignoring them. But really WTF is a future benifit worth if the program goes insolvent? Think about that. The government goes broke because they are in part servicing a debt that the Defense industry created. Yet SS is painted as the bad guy because for all these years they are one of the few government programs taking in more than what they were spending. Can you say that about Defense?

Just when does Defense spending get cut. These Tea Party folks want to cut spending yet refuse to cut the two biggext programs in government, Defense and SS.

Cut it all. I'm not saying defense shouldn't be cut. There isn't a god damn thing that Washington touches that shouldn't/couldn't be cut -- starting with Congress itself. WTF do we need so many of those morons and their staff.

As for the military, we have invested an insane amount of money in the ME. If anyone had said up front what it was going to cost, we should have tried a different approach -- nuke a capital and explain to the survivors that they just don't fuck with us anymore. Part of what made this whole endeavor so expensive is we have to be nice and not harm the civilians (as you liberals luve.) Its a hell of a lot cheaper to just blow shit up and let Allah straighten things out afterward.

What I am doing is trying for the umpteenth time to get it through your thick head that SS taxes are linked to benefits, thus you can't treat them the same as income or excise tax when talking about relative tax burdens. SS hasn't gone bankrupt and it never will. FDR was smart enough to put the employee contributions in the dish -- that ensured that it could never be taken away. Congress will have to find a way to fund it or we'll get new Congresses until they do. I realize that 20 something believe more in flying saucers than SS benefits, but you are old enough to know better.

Just that one point, nothing more nothing less. Why is that so hard to get through your thick head?

.

-- nuke a capital and explain to the survivors that they just don't fuck with us anymore. Part of what made this whole endeavor so expensive is we have to be nice and not harm the civilians (as you liberals luve.)

? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well I'm not a liberal, I like to consider myself fair minded! lol ( as an observer of life, if I see the people on the right spending my money, I don't go and blame people on the left for trying to do the exact same thing.)

Now were you to go to aspd Houston pigpen you will see that I have been saying that we should have just dropped the big one on Osama's ass, since before the war. I have no problem (not that I like it) with enemies civilian casualities (as opposed to ours!) if it brings a swift end to conflict.

.

What I am doing is trying for the umpteenth time to get it through your thick head that SS taxes are linked to benefits, ? Originally Posted by pjorourke

And what I am trying to get through your thin skin is that ALL taxes are linked to a benifit for some party or another.

And what I am trying to get through your thin skin is that ALL taxes are linked to a benifit for some party or another. Originally Posted by WTF

Well duh, but non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Its like me responding to your comment by saying: "I don't like broccoli"

If anyone had said up front what it was going to cost, we should have tried a different approach... Originally Posted by pjorourke

No one said up front how much it was going to cost? No one? Really?

Well duh, but non-sequitur. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Its like me responding to your comment by saying: "I don't like broccoli" Originally Posted by pjorourke

PJ, just because some think tank has convinced you that one tax is some how different than any other tax does not mean that you will be able to convince me.

Every single tax that we have benifits one person/group over another. If not then why even have a tax system if we are going to do nothing but play pass the buck from one pocket to another.

If you are trying to say that SS benifits more people than say Defense as far as measurable returns, I can't argue with that. But even I realize that their is a benifit to a strong military and educated workforce and healthy children ...... the question always remains "How much benifit?" then it turns to "How much will it cost me to buy a vote for my POV from some smuck that will not have any benifit from my POV?"

Then of course we wind up on eccie debating those fine points and hopefully getting laid along the way

Now go eat your broccoli, I hear it improves objectivity! If nothing else it'll clean out your pipes

No one said up front how much it was going to cost? No one? Really? Originally Posted by Lang Sicherung

Well no one that the admin. would listen to!

That is why these Tea wackers are so full of caca....they sat on their hands when folks said WTF to the low ball cost of these two wars and yet squeal like stuck hogs with healthcare costs are bantered about!

That is why these Tea wackers are so full of caca....they sat on their hands when folks said WTF to the low ball cost of these two wars and yet squeal like stuck hogs with healthcare costs are bantered about! Originally Posted by WTF

Really? Ron Paul (for one) was sitting on his hands? He didn't utter any dissent?

Really? Ron Paul (for one) was sitting on his hands? He didn't utter any dissent? Originally Posted by Lang Sicherung

Ok thats one Tea Wacker.

The rest sat on their ass, scared of the bogeyman and let's not forget that ever so patrotic mission in the early years of renaming french fries**.

Let's not try and rewrite history on me. Very few conseratives were standing up to Bush and Co....hell the liberals count that were standing up was rather dissappointing.



** speaking of , anyone notice the French declaring war on Al-Qaeda today?

Let's not try and rewrite history on me. Very few conseratives were standing up to Bush and Co....hell the liberals count that were standing up was rather dissappointing. Originally Posted by WTF

Fuck a conservative. Fuck a liberal. Just do the right thing. Nader was voicing opposition too.

Amazing how often and how much the "wackos" turn out to be correct, hunh?

Every single tax that we have benifits one person/group over another. If not then why even have a tax system if we are going to do nothing but play pass the buck from one pocket to another. Originally Posted by WTF

Never mind! You are hopeless -- or more accurately, just stubbornly refusing to admit my point.

Never mind! You are hopeless -- or more accurately, just stubbornly refusing to admit my point. Originally Posted by pjorourke

http://www.cocktailsandsmallbites.com/?p=196


..........................

PJ & WTF need to "get a room" --

[I don't even want to think about who plays "pitcher" and who plays "catcher"