On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But
other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old
geezer like me can do.

Yes, I have to agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, times have
changed. When I was 18 (mid seventies), if I was willing to do a
little manual labour, I could go out and get a new job every week. It
isn't that way anymore. (or so I'm told). Today, every potential
employer wants references and work experience. The practice of
teaching a new employee from the ground up has all but disappeared.

Of course, the sense of entitlement that many young people have these
day doesn't help the current situation much, but they had to learn
that sense from somewhere, and unfortunately it's us, the older
generation who taught it to them.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 4:28 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in
police, fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs
$250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more
taxes.BIG GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Why? ... they don't get any more services.

Suppose your "bigger home", of the same size and quality, is in Waco
where the appraised values for an equal sized home are half that in
Houston, but the government services those tax dollars provide are
equal, if not better?

I would argue that your assumption falls apart in that, very common,
scenario.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

Property taxes on primary residences are almost universally based on
"appraised value" in this country. Around here these appraisals are
done by a government instituted "appraisal district".

Among other things, creating an appraisal distrcit conveniently allows
elected officials to effectively circumvent "taxation without
representation" ... IOW, no longer can you hold an elected official
accountable for raising tax rates and vote him out of office. The
appraisal district, under the thumb of the government, sets the
appraised values, which almost always has the effect of increasing tax
revenue, without the inconvenience to an elected official of
increasing tax rates ... and, even during these tough times,
"appraised property values" have not fallen at the same rate as actual
real estate prices ... not even close.

My point is that I think it would be more equitable, and allow much
more power to the taxpayer (where it arguably belongs under our
Constitution), to base single family primary residences (very
important distinction here, your one and only "homestead" so to speak)
on a state wide "square foot" basis, instead of an easily manipulated
"appraised value" basis.

still based on "size", as in your first above ...

After all, most rural land has always been taxed on the former
principal, on an acreage basis, for decades ... a universally more
equitable practice, and allowing the citizen to actually hold his
elected representatives feet to the fire a la "taxation with
representation".

Another consequence (unintended or not) is that the system generated
built-in increases in revenue without elected officials having to do
anything, has certainly served to make it more convenient to increase
the rampant government spending we see at all levels.

I'm of the opinion that property taxes on primary residences are
becoming a crushing burden, to the point that, for all practical
purposes, you simply do not own your "home" any longer ... you are
renting it from the government. Stop paying those taxes and see how
long your "ownership" stands up ... and not the usurious "penalties
and interest" that make it almost impossible to recover from a
temporary setback in fortune.

Tilting at windmills, I know ... but it irks me how these things are
structured to take rights away from citizens, and without a whimper
from same, as most folks never "realize" their property tax payments
because it is handled like "withholding" from their paycheck.

I've been around too long, methinks ...

You're not really the curmudgeon you are pretending, Karl.

Problem with property taxes is those appraised values. On Long Island,
our home was appraised for about 10% of its price when we bought it, but
so were all homes. Huge cry for reappraisal, and then another one for
the huge increase in appraised value after the reappraisals. In reality,
it doesn't make a difference, as long as the same valuation methods are
used for all real estate.

Taxes are guessed at in NY and NJ through an attempt to figure out how
much money is needed to keep every civil servant busy, and most things in
town going alright. So they come up with let's say $100 million is neede
after state and feedderal help. Beautiful, they say. Now what is the
whole area's total appraised value? $10 million the assessor says. OK
the mayor says, then everyone should pay $10 per $1 appraised value, so
we get those $100 million. Wait, wait says the treasurer, we just
reappraised the whole town, and really we have $1 billion in appraised
value in total. Ok says the mayor, then everyone needs only pay 10
cents per $ appraised value. Think it through, they told everyone their
home was worth 100 times what it used to be, and taxes were reduced by
100 fold. But you would still pay the same amount regardless.

School taxes are a very big part hereabouts. So a town with good schools
is more expensive in that regard than a town with poor schools. (Graft
disregarded). In our little town of 17000, officials get the fire under
their footsoles with regard to moneys. Seems to run OK for the most part
....

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:36:24 -0500, "
Then they shouldn't have any vote to control other people's money, either.

No vote and no money. Excellent way to create a new lower class with
little hope of improving themselves.

You're pretty smart sometimes, but other times, you're just a clueless
idiot.

On 8/3/2011 7:38 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well. The
whole plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

I thought that payments were based upon your earnings, and the number of
quarters you were employed. At higher (retired) income levels, SS is
starting to be taxed, I believe.

I believe it was that the lower wage earners will statistically take out
proportionately more than they paid in, versus the higher wage earners.

I certainly pay taxes on SS, because I'm still earning ... and still
paying in.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 4:28 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in
police, fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs
$250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more
taxes.BIG GRIN

I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.


First off property taxes are based on many things, none of them make
sense unless you are tax man paying the appraisal district.

I have personally experienced the appraisal based on square footage,
what other homes in the vicinity are selling for regardless of size,
and aerial photographs to up the value of you home because of a
storage shed. In a single home I have had the way to determine
taxable value change at leas 3 times. So obviously one of the methods
was not fair.

Now, concerning the notion that you should pay more tax because you
have a larger house can be read many ways.

1. As you mentioned, you can afford it and higher taxes. Maybe, maybe
not. Think about the housing bubble and all those people that cheated
the system to qualify for a big home loan and can't afford to pay for
them now. Should they pay more taxes?

What if some one saved and lived within their means and paid cash for
a more expensive home. Should they pay more taxes because they live
more frugally, handle their money better, and still make the same
money as those that poof off every cent they earn and live in an much
much smaller home but get the same services as the expensive home
buyer making the same money??


2. A bigger house affords you to raise you a larger family...Really?
It seems to me that those that have the largest families live in less
valuable homes and by in large pay the least amount of taxes. All
those deductions. Many don't know how to stop having kids, and they
ain't smart enough to earn a decent living any way so they get more
government help.

Now lets reconsider again why a more expensive home owner should pay
more taxes...

If assumptions are a valid point for determining taxability lets
explore other possible options.

1. Lets look at taxing those that did better in school and or those
that spend responsibly. Certainly they have the mental resources to
figure out how to pay more taxes. Seems fair, they have the
potential.

2. Lets look at taxing those that can afford to retire, hell they can
afford to retire, let them pay more taxes, they can afford it.

See any problems with any of this yet?

I still say every one is liable to pay the same amount of tax, period.
A single person pays "x". A married couple pays "2x". If they have a
child they pay "3x" until that child moves away from home or can
afford to pay his own tax. 3 kids, "5x".

Cant afford to pay taxes for 3 kids, you can afford to raise 3 kids.

That truly is the only fair method.

You can argue all you want. Just be glad you're not in Holland. Used
to be (maybe still is) that you get taxed on your money in the bank, and
your investments (capital or wealth tax). You get taxed for real estate
value, sewer, school, even ton the emount of money you savebecause you
don't have to rent!!! and someone from the city will figure it all out
for you.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in news:4e39e069$0$2959$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

At least part of the "root cause" is that some people, through
education, experience, natural ability, etc. know how to create a
surplus and others don't. If you took one of each and started them out
on an equal footing, before long one would be rich and the other would
be poor. How do you propose to "get at" the unequal distribution of
talent and ability for making and holding onto wealth?

I'd like to reward the generators of wealth, and I'd like to not support
the spendthrifts and mismanaging people. But they do have kids, so perhaps
society would be better off if we didn't punish the kids of stupid (for
lack of a better word) people, at least not too much. My kids (daughter
and son-in-law) teach high school in not very rich school districts, and
they are trying to make a difference and "uplift" the kids they teach, with
some success.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at a
cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy
widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold. Plus,
some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC to save a
buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its incremental
profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more complicated, but
reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall effect -- it
stimulates growth in the private sector, which ultimately results in
increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets because
of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by lowering prices,
thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If you lower income
taxes, people have more disposable income, but spending that extra income
(if they do it at all - now they may be paying off debt) does NOT
increase income tax revenue.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 04 Aug 2011 00:37:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:hY-
:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

LBJ started using the SS for the Vietnam war, I'm told. Thatwas
before I lived in the US, and certainly before I could vote.

I'm not sure who said SS wouldn't go out. Since it is officially a
separate kitty, it should have gone out. Now the debt ceiling is
raised, we'll never find out ...

SS is *NOT* a separate kitty. It's a tax and a liability, like any
other. That's the way it had to be to get SCOTUS to pass on it.

I trust wikipedia more than I trust you for facts such as these, sorry!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:59:20 -0400, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:36:24 -0500, "
Then they shouldn't have any vote to control other people's money, either.

No vote and no money. Excellent way to create a new lower class with
little hope of improving themselves.

Wrong. It's all about responsibility, rights, and incentive. YOu can't have
rights without responsibility. There can't be an incentive to leech.

You're pretty smart sometimes, but other times, you're just a clueless
idiot.

I'll put you in the vote-yourself-a-raise, "taker", column.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 8/3/2011 7:38 PM, Han wrote:
z wrote in
:

The point that hasn't been raised is that the
low-wage earners will get a higher percentage out of SS, as well.
The whole plane is shifted away from the makers to the takers.

I thought that payments were based upon your earnings, and the number
of quarters you were employed. At higher (retired) income levels, SS
is starting to be taxed, I believe.

I believe it was that the lower wage earners will statistically take
out proportionately more than they paid in, versus the higher wage
earners.

I certainly pay taxes on SS, because I'm still earning ... and still
paying in.

I'd have to redo my taxes and see the differences with and without SS.
Oh, wait. This is what the IRS says. Basically, if you have SS income
plus other income part of SS may become taxable.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=179091,00.html

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave wrote in
:

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But
other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old
geezer like me can do.

Yes, I have to agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, times have
changed. When I was 18 (mid seventies), if I was willing to do a
little manual labour, I could go out and get a new job every week. It
isn't that way anymore. (or so I'm told). Today, every potential
employer wants references and work experience. The practice of
teaching a new employee from the ground up has all but disappeared.

Of course, the sense of entitlement that many young people have these
day doesn't help the current situation much, but they had to learn
that sense from somewhere, and unfortunately it's us, the older
generation who taught it to them.

One of the reasons I retired was that I wanted to use my hands some of
the time to make something, rather than move bytes in my work computer.
But yes, even my wonderful grandkids sometimes grumble about manual work.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 04 Aug 2011 01:17:12 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 04 Aug 2011 00:37:04 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in news:hY-
:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

LBJ started using the SS for the Vietnam war, I'm told. Thatwas
before I lived in the US, and certainly before I could vote.

I'm not sure who said SS wouldn't go out. Since it is officially a
separate kitty, it should have gone out. Now the debt ceiling is
raised, we'll never find out ...

SS is *NOT* a separate kitty. It's a tax and a liability, like any
other. That's the way it had to be to get SCOTUS to pass on it.

I trust wikipedia more than I trust you for facts such as these, sorry!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

An accounting gimmick. There is no money in the "trust fund" (never has
been), just some IOUs with your children's name on them.

The *fact* is that SS taxes are simply taxes, like any other.

http://hnn.us/articles/10212.html

In article , Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
.com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at a
cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy
widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold. Plus,
some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC to save a
buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its incremental
profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more complicated, but
reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall effect -- it
stimulates growth in the private sector, which ultimately results in
increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets because
of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by lowering prices,
thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If you lower income
taxes, people have more disposable income, but spending that extra income
(if they do it at all - now they may be paying off debt) does NOT
increase income tax revenue.

Well, you have *part* of this right, but you haven't taken it to its logical
conclusion. What happens to that extra income when they spend it? It doesn't
just evaporate. They're spending it on *something*. Suppose they decide to buy
a TV, and eat out one more time a week. One family doing that doesn't make any
difference to the economy -- but a hundred thousand families doing that means
a hundred thousand more TVs sold, and about five million more restaurant meals
a year. That creates jobs for waiters, cooks, and anyone involved in the
production and retail of TV sets. It means more jobs for truck drivers hauling
TVs, food, and dishwashing soap. The waiters, cooks, retail clerks, and truck
drivers buy food, they buy cars, they buy houses... it expands exponentially.

Surely you don't suppose that all those newly employed waiters, cooks, clerks,
and truck drivers pay no taxes, do you?

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

In article om, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote:

No, it's not. You're ignoring the fact that "regular wage earners" pay social
security taxes on most or all of their income, even if they pay no personal
income tax at all, while those with unearned income (i.e. dividends, capital
gains, and interest) do not. A great many wage earners pay substantially more
in social security tax than they do in personal income tax. I need look no
further than my own tax return for an example: in 2010, we paid $2500 more in
social security tax than we paid in personal income tax. They are *both* taxes
on income, but only one is actually *called* that. And only one is actually
paid by those whose income is entirely, or primarily, from dividends and
capital gains. Those who actually *work* for a living pay *both*. And that's
fundamentally unfair.

All other factors (deductions, exemptions, etc.) being equal, someone with
$100K annual income solely from dividends pays significantly less in *total*
taxes than someone with $100K annual income solely from salary. That's not
right.
---------------------------------
You do a great job of making Obama's case to increase the taxes on
that part of a $250K or greater income above $250K.

That's quite a leap of illogic you've made there.

It's actually making the case for either (a) a flat tax, where everyone pays
the same rate regardless of how much they make, or (b) abolishing income taxes
altogether in favor of some form of consumption tax.

In article , Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:53:17 -0700, busbus wrote:

But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But
other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old
geezer like me can do.

BTW, how many migrant farm workers do we import every year because
American workers won't do stoop labor? At least that's what the farmers
(i.e. farm corporations) claim.

What they mean is that Americans won't do it for the low wages that the
corporate farms want to pay them.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:18:20 -0500, "
Wrong. It's all about responsibility, rights, and incentive. You can't have
rights without responsibility. There can't be an incentive to leech.

Nobody *likes* being poor contrary to what you believe. And contrary
to what you and many others (those who are earning a liveable income)
believe, is that many people in the lower class *want* to work, want
to contribute and improve themselves. Many times, poor health or other
infortunate circumstances prevent people from getting out of the hole
they're in. Those few who are content to sit on the public dole, give
all the rest of the poor a bad name.

I'll put you in the vote-yourself-a-raise, "taker", column.

The top of the pyramid when it comes to voting yourself a raise are
all the politician, bank managers, heads of corporations and self
serving money managers. How many people in the upper echelons of
society screw up and then leave with their golden parachutes in hand?

And just for your information, my ethics don't let me accept money
unless I feel that I've earned it. I work hard for the money I earn.
Of course, you're perfectly free to believe otherwise.

Leon wrote:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called the
Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested in U.S.
Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS Trust Fund can
redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund - in the
form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

An accounting gimmick. There is no money in the "trust fund" (never
has been), just some IOUs with your children's name on them.

No, it is a generally accepted accounting practice. There is NO accounting
difference between the SS administration holding cash and the SS
administration holding government bonds. Just like there is no difference on
your personal balance sheet between you holding $10,000 in cash or you
holding a $10,000 CD from your local bank.


The *fact* is that SS taxes are simply taxes, like any other.

http://hnn.us/articles/10212.html

This argument seems quite similar to the recent one about universal health
care funding: Are people who are forced to pay money to the government for
health care insurance paying an insurance "premium" or paying a "tax."
Admittedly, the results are quite similar.

Just Wondering wrote:
At least part of the "root cause" is that some people, through
education, experience, natural ability, etc. know how to create a
surplus and others don't. If you took one of each and started them
out on an equal footing, before long one would be rich and the other
would be poor. How do you propose to "get at" the unequal
distribution of talent and ability for making and holding onto wealth?

Quite simple, really: You mandate equal outcomes. This can be done by social
promotion in schools, affirmative action, progressive tax rates, or any of
myriad techniques instituted by a liberal-inclined political class.

Han wrote:

I agree to the extent that the debt has to be paid. But it is almost
useless to pay on the debt without reining in spending.

Or enhancing revenues. Why should big corporations be able to post
enormous profits and pay no income taxes? Etc, etc. For one thing,
hiding moneys overseas should be abolished. I had to pay tax on
overseas moneys, so why shouldn't "they"?


Tax "breaks," "loopholes," and the like are generally exceptions built into
the tax code to foster some social goal. Things like "enterprise zones,"
subsidies, deductions for green energy are some examples. If, as a result of
these considerations, a company ends up paying NO taxes, then shouldn't the
company be applauded and held up for praise because it aggressively pursuing
these social goals?

Consider: The companies didn't MAKE the rules, they shouldn't be criticized
for playing by them. Conversely, as I said, these companies should be
acclaimed. Applauded. Feted with government appointments (as the president
of GE).

The fact that you had to pay tax on overseas funds is totally due to your
own ignorance.

(Hint: There is no reporting requirement on overseas INSURANCE policies.
There are companies that will take your cash and issue you an annuity policy
in which you can direct the investments and reverse at any time. Totally
non-reportable. Or taxable.)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:23:18 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Every time taxes have been cut, revenue has increased.

Statistics please. IIRC, OMB, or maybe CBO stated that revenues went
down for several years after the Bush tax cuts and then slowly
increased as the economy grew.

You (and the OMB) are correct. It took a bit for the economy to adjust.

Here's one treatment:
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:46:05 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

An accounting gimmick. There is no money in the "trust fund" (never
has been), just some IOUs with your children's name on them.

No, it is a generally accepted accounting practice. There is NO accounting
difference between the SS administration holding cash and the SS
administration holding government bonds. Just like there is no difference on
your personal balance sheet between you holding $10,000 in cash or you
holding a $10,000 CD from your local bank.


The *fact* is that SS taxes are simply taxes, like any other.

http://hnn.us/articles/10212.html

This argument seems quite similar to the recent one about universal health
care funding: Are people who are forced to pay money to the government for
health care insurance paying an insurance "premium" or paying a "tax."
Admittedly, the results are quite similar.

That's *exactly* the argument Obama is trotting out again. It's a little
tougher this time because you can avoid the "tax" by buying something the
government wants you to buy.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:37:54 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Leon wrote:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called the
Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested in U.S.
Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS Trust Fund can
redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund - in the
form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

To redeem them, the government must first borrow the money. There's a problem
here...

On 8/3/2011 7:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called the
Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested in U.S.
Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS Trust Fund can
redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund - in the
form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.


All true, however:

The trust fund only contains the surplus collections from over the
years. The rest of the collections are paid out to recipient and for
overhead.

The interest is paid with more bonds.

The surplus taxes collected (that $2 trillion) was spent after the
federal government traded it for the Bonds and plunked it into the
general fund.

When SS needs to redeem the bonds because of deficits (which happened in
2010 to the tune of $49 billion), the feds need to get the money from
their only sources of money - either from the general fund with new tax
money (which they didn't have), print it (resulting in inflation which
goes by the name of qualatative easing) or borrow (which they had to do
last year and this). $4 billion of the cashed in bonds (interest) and
the additional $45 billion was borrowed and now became public debt
rather than the intragovernmental debt in the fund.

So, every dollar in the trust fund is a dollar of national debt.

In all, there are around 150 federal trust funds holding close to $5
trillion of debt.

Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
. com:


No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at a
cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy
widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold.
Plus, some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC
to save a buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its
incremental profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more
complicated, but reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall
effect -- it stimulates growth in the private sector, which
ultimately results in increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets
because of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by
lowering prices, thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If
you lower income taxes, people have more disposable income, but
spending that extra income (if they do it at all - now they may be
paying off debt) does NOT increase income tax revenue.

You are correct Han. And further - Just Wondering's proposition is too
simplistic - as he even admits himself. It does not work that simplisticaly
in the business world - let alone in the convoluted world of the US tax
structure/economy.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:03:07 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/3/2011 9:32 AM, Markem wrote:

Good idea as I have heard this "The weather in Houston is great 78
degrees all the time, now why anyone would want to go outside is with
tht is beyond me."

Two shop fans, blowing 105 degree, 90% humidity laden air, and the
temptation to come in from the shop the past couple of days is overwhelming.

AKA why I'm wasting time in the office at this time of day ...

Um, for the price of one of those Festering thingies, you could have
had wall/ceiling insulation and a window air conditioning unit. For a
couple/three of 'em, a full-blown HVAC system.

My, what interesting choices we make in our lives.

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:24:43 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/3/2011 11:11 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:40:57 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

That lot is still available, Karl.

Yabbut, how will you two be when you both live together, not just work
together?


We think a lot the same way, I don't think it would be a problem.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Lots of married couples thought that way...
snort

--
Win first, Fight later.

--martial principle of the Samurai

Doug Miller wrote:



Well, you have *part* of this right, but you haven't taken it to its
logical conclusion. What happens to that extra income when they spend
it? It doesn't
just evaporate. They're spending it on *something*.

False assumption. It often goes into unspent money - savings. Or... it
goes into paying down debt which is good, but viewed as an evil in our
current definition of a healthy economy. Money spent paying down debt is
not considered money returned to the economy - or in your words "spent on
something".


Suppose they
decide to buy
a TV, and eat out one more time a week. One family doing that doesn't
make any difference to the economy -- but a hundred thousand families
doing that means
a hundred thousand more TVs sold, and about five million more
restaurant meals
a year. That creates jobs for waiters, cooks, and anyone involved in
the
production and retail of TV sets. It means more jobs for truck
drivers hauling
TVs, food, and dishwashing soap. The waiters, cooks, retail clerks,
and truck drivers buy food, they buy cars, they buy houses... it
expands exponentially.


And when they don't do that with their money???

--

-Mike-

Surely you don't suppose that all those newly employed waiters,
cooks, clerks,
and truck drivers pay no taxes, do you?

That's how cutting tax rates leads to an increase in tax revenues.

On 03 Aug 2011 21:28:37 GMT, Han wrote:

Swingman wrote in
m:

That brings up a couple of good questions:

For property tax purposes, does a single family _primary residence_
that appraises at $500k derive correspondingly more benefit in police,
fire, roads, government, schools, etc. than one that costs $250k?

If not, why should it pay proportionately higher property taxes for
the same amount of benefit?

Inquiring minds looking for a rationale

If you can afford a more expensive home,you can afford more taxes. BIG
GRIN

I knew you'd say that, even if you faked the reason for the grin.


I'd assume (yesss) that a bigger home would have space for more kids,
more cars, more prisons, etc. So yes, a bigger home should pay more.

So, potential pays, regardless of the number of kids/cars/...prisons?
(Prisons? Whose homes do you visit? Into BDSM, are we?


Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

....The way the assessor is holding his mouth at the time of
assessment, the number of times his wife loved him this week, etc.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
At least part of the "root cause" is that some people, through
education, experience, natural ability, etc. know how to create a
surplus and others don't. If you took one of each and started them
out on an equal footing, before long one would be rich and the other
would be poor. How do you propose to "get at" the unequal
distribution of talent and ability for making and holding onto
wealth?

Quite simple, really: You mandate equal outcomes. This can be done by
social promotion in schools, affirmative action, progressive tax
rates, or any of myriad techniques instituted by a liberal-inclined
political class.

Errrr... I've had my fill of "social promotions" in schools. Thing about
that for just a moment...

Geezus - talk about a stupid idea in the first place, that proved its own
stupidity in its own failure...

--

-Mike-

On 03 Aug 2011 16:42:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Jack Stein wrote in :

snipped

Jack, we agree (I think) that confiscatory taxes are a no-no, that tax
simplification and elimination of loopholes and crazy "shelters" woukld be
good, and, moreover, that we should spend as we generate income (as
governments). Now, then we should have a really good set of REALLY wise
men and women sit down and figure out how to get to a zero deficit.

I am sure that will need to include revenue enhancement, since abolishing
Medicare/Aid or the Pentagon is not to the country's best interests.
Agriculture give-aways, perhaps eliminating those would be good, etc, etc.

Pick an alphabet agency. See how its functions are duplicated
elsewhere in gov't? Let's abolish all the duplications and worthless
agencies. That should cut the gov't by, oh, about 75%, reducing the
need for large taxes and eliminating the deficit at once. Leave the
tax rate the same to pay off the national debt more quickly, but move
to a flat rate. End the policy of giving away money to other countries
until we pay off the debt entirely. Instead, send advisors, as China
is doing, to many people's pleasure.

Turning the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan back over to their own
people would be nice, too. Wars are expensive. Especially wars which
don't accomplish a damned thing, let alone the establishment of a
democratic gov't there. Grrrr...

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 00:07:33 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 11:53:17 -0700, busbus wrote:

But you need to do something instead of just gripe about it.

What needs to be done is to bring back jobs for unskilled labor. But
other than point that out to the politicians, there's not much an old
geezer like me can do.

BTW, how many migrant farm workers do we import every year because
American workers won't do stoop labor? At least that's what the farmers
(i.e. farm corporations) claim.

How many people are going to continue to spew that bull**** for how
long? Christ, Americans are lining up for ANY job now, and they have
for eons. The reason those jobs go to illegals is because they'll
work for less, work for longer hours, and never complain. It's money,
not American choice, which drives that business attitude.

Then again, many Americans can't bend over that far due to obesity.

--
In the depth of winter, I finally learned
that within me there lay an invincible summer.
-- Albert Camus

On 8/3/2011 5:58 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Swingman" wrote:

I'm sorta thinking that the root cause of any current "imbalance" is
NOT based on the tax code so, instead of trying to fix it with the
tax code, doesn't it make more sense to get at the root cause?
--------------------------------
What?

You don't have a problem with a 14,000 page federal income tax law?

I'm surprisedGrin.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that ****Can-101 should apply and do a
serious rewrite of the tax laws.

Can't you just see the lobbyists on "K" street drooling at their jowls
if it ever came to pass.


What we need is a constitutional amendment that says any vote by a
Senator or Representative who didn't read the entire bill, and who can't
accurately explain what it means in his/her own words, doesn't count,
and that any bill already passed that can't meet this requirement is
repealed. All votes must be accompanied by a certification to that
effect. Any voter who is proven to have falsely certifies a vote is
expelled from office.

On 8/3/2011 7:12 PM, Han wrote:
Just wrote in
. com:

On 8/3/2011 9:21 AM, Han wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 8/2/2011 11:13 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Cut taxes so that additional debt is created.

Except since at least JFK, cutting taxes has ALWAYS resulted in
increased revenues.

Fudged statistics, I'm sure. At least it defies logic that by
cutting income you'll get more money in.

No it doesn't. If ABC Company and DEF company both make widgets at a
cost of $6 each and sell them at $10 each, they'll have the same
income.
But if ABC Company cuts its selling price to $9 each, it cuts its
income by a dollar for each widget it sells, so it will make less
money, right? Wrong. It stimulates the market - more people can buy
widgets when they cost less, so more total widgets can be sold. Plus,
some people that would have bought from DEF now buy from ABC to save a
buck. As a result, by reducing its price and thus its incremental
profit margin, ABC gets more money. It's more complicated, but
reducing incremental tax rates has the same overall effect -- it
stimulates growth in the private sector, which ultimately results in
increased revenue.

Widgets aren't like taxes. What you are saying goes for widgets because
of the elasticity of demand. You can increase demand by lowering prices,
thus with a smaller margin, increase net profit. If you lower income
taxes, people have more disposable income, but spending that extra income
(if they do it at all - now they may be paying off debt) does NOT
increase income tax revenue.

Sure it does. When ABC Company sells more widgets, it has more income.
That income is taxable, so ABC winds up paying more income taxes.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called
the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested
in U.S. Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS
Trust Fund can redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund
- in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.

To redeem them, the government must first borrow the money. There's
a problem here...

Actually, no. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but if SSA redeems a
bond, the indebtedness of the U.S. goes DOWN as they pay the bond in
funny-money. The U.S. does not have to borrow anything to redeem a SSA bond.

Dave wrote in
:

And just for your information, my ethics don't let me accept money
unless I feel that I've earned it. I work hard for the money I earn.
Of course, you're perfectly free to believe otherwise.

If it is government money, and they say I deserve it, I do take it. That
includes pension-like money from Holland that I "deserve" just because I
lived there between the ages of 15 and 23. Whether or not I contributed to
their pension funds or not. BTW, Rob, it is tax-free in the US.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote:

Why? ... they don't get any more services.

Suppose your "bigger home", of the same size and quality, is in Waco
where the appraised values for an equal sized home are half that in
Houston, but the government services those tax dollars provide are
equal, if not better?

I would argue that your assumption falls apart in that, very common,
scenario.

Property taxes are based on many things. Some may be the number of
plumbing fixtures, the amount of living space, etc.

Property taxes on primary residences are almost universally based on
"appraised value" in this country. Around here these appraisals are
done by a government instituted "appraisal district".

Among other things, creating an appraisal distrcit conveniently allows
elected officials to effectively circumvent "taxation without
representation" ... IOW, no longer can you hold an elected official
accountable for raising tax rates and vote him out of office. The
appraisal district, under the thumb of the government, sets the
appraised values, which almost always has the effect of increasing tax
revenue, without the inconvenience to an elected official of
increasing tax rates ... and, even during these tough times,
"appraised property values" have not fallen at the same rate as
actual real estate prices ... not even close.

My point is that I think it would be more equitable, and allow much
more power to the taxpayer (where it arguably belongs under our
Constitution), to base single family primary residences (very
important distinction here, your one and only "homestead" so to
speak) on a state wide "square foot" basis, instead of an easily
manipulated "appraised value" basis.

still based on "size", as in your first above ...

After all, most rural land has always been taxed on the former
principal, on an acreage basis, for decades ... a universally more
equitable practice, and allowing the citizen to actually hold his
elected representatives feet to the fire a la "taxation with
representation".

Another consequence (unintended or not) is that the system generated
built-in increases in revenue without elected officials having to do
anything, has certainly served to make it more convenient to increase
the rampant government spending we see at all levels.

I'm of the opinion that property taxes on primary residences are
becoming a crushing burden, to the point that, for all practical
purposes, you simply do not own your "home" any longer ... you are
renting it from the government. Stop paying those taxes and see how
long your "ownership" stands up ... and not the usurious "penalties
and interest" that make it almost impossible to recover from a
temporary setback in fortune.

Tilting at windmills, I know ... but it irks me how these things are
structured to take rights away from citizens, and without a whimper
from same, as most folks never "realize" their property tax payments
because it is handled like "withholding" from their paycheck.

I've been around too long, methinks ...

Add to that the notion that the rich should pay LESS in taxes than the poor.

Oh, sure, the rich should pay SOMETHING: they are driven on tax-supported
roads and fly through government controlled airspace. But they don't send
their kids to public schools, get treated at the county hospital, receive
food stamps or rent supplements, and seldom end up in government owned
housing (i.e., prison).

Still, a case could be made that the lower your income, the more government
services you require, and the more you should pay.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

On 8/3/2011 7:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Leon wrote:

But in real life if the government is using your SS contributions to
run the government it is a tax. The past weeks threat of missed SS
payment checks would never have been a second thought if that fund
was a separate entity not mixed in with the general fund. Today the
SS fund is simply another Government liability account. Than you
Prez Clinton.

It IS a separate fund. Funds received by SSA go into a pile called
the Social Security Trust Fund. Those funds are prudently invested in
U.S. Treasury bonds (which pay interest). The governors of the SS
Trust Fund can redeem these bonds anytime they wish.

Today, there is about $2 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund -
in the form of U.S. Treasury Bonds.


All true, however:

The trust fund only contains the surplus collections from over the
years. The rest of the collections are paid out to recipient and for
overhead.

The interest is paid with more bonds.

The surplus taxes collected (that $2 trillion) was spent after the
federal government traded it for the Bonds and plunked it into the
general fund.

When SS needs to redeem the bonds because of deficits (which happened
in 2010 to the tune of $49 billion), the feds need to get the money
from their only sources of money - either from the general fund with
new tax money (which they didn't have), print it (resulting in
inflation which goes by the name of qualatative easing) or borrow
(which they had to do last year and this). $4 billion of the cashed
in bonds (interest) and the additional $45 billion was borrowed and
now became public debt rather than the intragovernmental debt in the
fund.

So, every dollar in the trust fund is a dollar of national debt.

In all, there are around 150 federal trust funds holding close to $5
trillion of debt.

The dollars I paid/pay in FICA every time I get or got a paycheck are
going weither towards SS payouts or that trustfund. No way those dollars
magically turn into debt. They're assets to be used for ss payouts.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Jaques wrote:

Turning the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan back over to their own
people would be nice, too. Wars are expensive. Especially wars which
don't accomplish a damned thing, let alone the establishment of a
democratic gov't there. Grrrr...

Well, there's the deterrent effect...

Look what we did to Sadaam: We invaded his country, deposed him from power,
exiled his family, confiscated his fortune, took over his homes, imprisoned
his friends, killed his children, and eventually got his ass hanged.

In a rational world, tyrants likewise inclined would be incentivized to
moderate their behavior lest the same thing happen to them.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

HeyBub wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
At least part of the "root cause" is that some people, through
education, experience, natural ability, etc. know how to create a
surplus and others don't. If you took one of each and started them
out on an equal footing, before long one would be rich and the other
would be poor. How do you propose to "get at" the unequal
distribution of talent and ability for making and holding onto
wealth?

Quite simple, really: You mandate equal outcomes. This can be done by
social promotion in schools, affirmative action, progressive tax
rates, or any of myriad techniques instituted by a liberal-inclined
political class.

Errrr... I've had my fill of "social promotions" in schools. Thing
about that for just a moment...

Geezus - talk about a stupid idea in the first place, that proved its
own stupidity in its own failure...

Social promotion stinks. And to answer Heybub, I'm for letting people up
or down as to their abilities. Mandating equal outcomes is nonsense,
you'd defeat teaching people selfesteem. But it is very difficult to
teach that a smart kid who doesn't need todo homework to get A's isn't
"worth" as much as a kid who has trouble learning things, but works hard
at it. Now, who has to get the most $$ in his job later on, that's a
different question. But to me, it is all about the sincerety and energy
with which you do your job. You all know that a good hands-on plumber is
worth at least as much as the person faking the budgets for the school
.... (DONT TAKE IT PERSONAL -- ANOTHER BIG GRIN)

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid