Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Trump
climber
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 11:51am PT
|
I remember going into my child’s preschool a while back to talk to the teacher after school had gotten out for the day. There was this beautiful katydid that had made its way inside the classroom and was fluttering around the window. So we gently caught it and took it outside and released it into the wild. As soon as we let it go, and it started to fly away from my hand, a bird swooped down from a tree and snatched it up and ate it.
The problem was that the katydid made a bad decision. Well, that’s one way to look at it, anyway. But I couldn’t help thinking that maybe I was the one who had made the bad decision.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 02:02pm PT
|
The government tells my neighbor not to feed the wild deer - they will become tame. They have become tame. Should we have more government? You feed the birds anyway, damn the government.
We "feed the poor" via welfare, damn the consequences... Should we have more government?
Ahhh... best intentions...
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 02:53pm PT
|
Watch hartouni play the organ grinder ...See the insane Madbolter dance the watusi...On and on and....
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 03:08pm PT
|
We "feed the poor" via welfare, damn the consequences... Should we have more government?
Nah, don't feed them. Eventually they will starve, or at least have fewer kids. The resulting labor shortage will increase wages and eventually they will be able to afford to eat.
Market efficiency. /Adam Smith
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 03:10pm PT
|
We "feed the poor" via welfare
Lest we forget... it's more clear when you couch government redistribution plans for what they really are.
"I want men with rifles to take, by murder or certain imprisonment, things from these people at gunpoint and give them to these other people over there"
Strips all the pretty marketing from the real action.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2019 - 10:09pm PT
|
The main type of welfare going on in Washington DC is favors and breaks for the rich.
"In early May, Ryan flew to Nevada to solicit money from Sheldon Adelson — the casino magnate who was by far the largest Republican contributor of 2018 — for the Congressional Leadership Fund, an independent expenditure super PAC. Ryan was accompanied by Norm Coleman, a former Republican Senator from Minnesota.
The Leadership Fund, according to its website, is “a super PAC exclusively dedicated to protecting and strengthening the Republican Majority in the House of Representatives.” It “operates independently of any federal candidate or officeholder.”
Adelson could not legally hand over his check to Ryan, who is a federal officeholder. Incidentally, Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, reported a $700 million windfall as a result of the $1.5 trillion tax cut enacted last year by the House under Ryan’s supervision.
So how did they conduct this delicate transaction?
First, Ryan, Coleman and others “laid out a case to Adelson about how crucial it is to protect the House,” according to Politico’s report. Then Ryan “left the room, Coleman made the ‘ask’ and secured the $30 million contribution.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/06/opinion/citizens-united-corruption-pacs.html
There are a hundred fulltime lobbyists for each congressperson, mostly trying to get government to give the rich trillions of dollars in undeserved benefits.
Why is trumpy ruining the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Why were for-profit schools allowed to scam so many?
Why is educational debt different than corporate debt?
Why are so many near monopolies allowed by the FTC and FCC?
Why do Americans pay higher drug prices?
Why don't real estate owners pay taxes on swaps?
Why don't hedge fund mgrs pay full income tax?
Why do special interests hate net neutrality?
Why is it more effective that Warren Buffet's employees are in a far higher total tax bracket than he is?
Why is it more effective that hedge fund billionaires are able to pay tax on commissions that is treated as a long term capital gain?
Why does Social Security tax not apply to all income?
Why was donny trump allowed to write off $900 million in fake losses in one year alone? Why was he allowed to continue claiming fake losses for years?
Why is it better to tax working citizens to pay for government than to tax heirs like the Waltons?
Why is Dick Cheney rich?
Why are coal mines allowed to pollute public water?
Why does the government vastly undercount those afflicted by black lung disease?
Why is it better to pay for tax cuts for the rich by increasing the federal deficit?
Why was quantitative easing used to shore up the rich by paying them far more for debt assets than the commercial market value?
|
|
ManMountain
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2019 - 02:52pm PT
|
I'm gobsmacked! Just spent over an hour reading this entire thread and the erudite musings of what I formerly considered to be a bunch of aging dirtbaggers, with very little flaming & ad hominem attacks, is refreshing. I've actually learned a lot; time well spent.
I'll not reveal which side I'm on; I'm not sure it's as simple as only two sides to the coin. But two recurrent comments have caught my eye and I'll comment on them:
Why does Social Security tax not apply to all income? I hear this one all the time. Briefly, Social Security is a mandated insurance program wholly funded by employers & employees to prevent those who are middle/lower class wage earners with no clue (or unable) concerning planning ahead financially for their retirement and age out of the labor market from living their last years in abject poverty. It is *not* a retirement plan in that benefits are determined at what (rightly or wrongly) the Feds consider the minimum it would take to survive, and your benefit amount is directly tied to your best 40 quarters of employment, less for those who didn't generate a lot of wages, more for those who were more industrious, but everybody gets something. It has to be this way for actuarial reasons; the system is entirely self-funded, similar to commercial life insurance.
Now, consider the mega earner who like everybody else, contributes on their first $132,000/annual wages (2019) but gets off scott free for any earnings above that. It's because upon retirement Mr. Ritchy will only get the maximum benefit amount of +-$2,800/month, based on the dough taken out of his first $132,000 annual wages over the years. It's unfair that he'd contribute more during his earning years than the benefits he would accrue during retirement, that's not an insurance plan, that's a wealth transfer tax.
I know it's hard to comprehend so consider this: If all income is subject to SS deductions and Mr. Big makes 1.32 million a year he'll contribute ten times the money into the system, would deserve $28,000/month but only get the capped $2,800/month. No way from an actuarial standpoint is that what SS is about.
Generally I think the SS system is one of the best Federal ideas ever implemented; I have friends with philosophy degrees/lifetime dirtbaggers with spotty employment history who upon hitting 65 were pleasantly surprised they'd be getting an $800 check from Mr. Sam 'till the day they die. Me, I worked my ass off for wages my entire life and now have a yearly SS income of $29,000/year which is enough to comfortably live my admittedly dirtbaggish life.
Finally, there's lots of hue and cry that the SS system is broke and will go under in 2034. Aside from the callous reality I will be dead by then so don't care is that SS actuarially based, and has been stung by the fact that people are living longer than predicted 20 years ago. Easily fixed by bumping up retirement age by another year or two, and possibly jacking up the contribution amounts by 1/2%, then all the numbers pencil out for the foreseeable future. Politically, very hard to accomplish but such adjustments have been done every 20 years or so to keep SS solvent, and we may see the Feds do so again in the near future.
So don't bag on the Social Security system, it works and will work forever if tinkered with a bit. And most importantly don't demand the rich pay in more than their fair share; Social Security is mandated to be a poor folks insurance plan, not a wealth transfer tax.
Nuclear holocaust. Yep, I was scared shitless in the early sixties, duck and cover at school training, and my parents buried a (very nice) bomb shelter in the back yard. But the end of the world scenario has been decisively disproved. Consider this: 520 atmospheric & 1,400 underground nuclear bombs have been detonated in history, which were fairly harmless outside of ground zero; the world continued to rotate. I was the radiological officer for a County for 5 years, lots of training and I've spent beer evenings with college colleagues who went on to direct the Los Alamos Lab and the non-hysterical consensus is yes, a 5,000 bomb global conflict conducted over a few days would be a very bad thing considering ICBMs are targeted and would wipe out military installations, infrastucture & major metropolises with untold millions of casualties, a major setback for humanity for sure. But the end of humanity, a fantasy. Nuclear winter, unlikely. The fact is no matter how hard we try we can't exterminate humanity using weapons.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2019 - 06:17pm PT
|
" Why are coal mines allowed to pollute public water?"
That is not the right question.
The right question is: why are coal mines allow to pollute public water and metal mines aren't?
And the answer no one wants to hear is: No one f*#king cares about West Virginia.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2019 - 08:04pm PT
|
It is incorrect to think there is a rational reason for the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. The only reason for the existing structure of Social Security tax and benefits is that the rich have better lobbyists.
1. If the income cap were raised, of course the max payout per month would rise a little. However the upper bracket of Social Security payout formula is only 1/6 of the lower bracket. So you would lose most of your money, just like what is already happening to the upper middle class. Why should the rich be exempt? The system is progressive from the poor to middle income level. But becomes highly regressive for income above the cap, meaning the rich get a much lower tax rate and are not doing their share to support society. And of course, social security is a payroll tax only paid on earned income. All unearned income is exempt, such as dividends and capital gains. Why? Because the rich have better lobbyists.
There are 3 brackets. If you are what the government calls upper middle income, you are in the upper of the 3 brackets. Your payout is only 1/6 for this income level compared to the lower income level. So it is COMPLETELY the middle class that is Subsidizing the relatively higher payout level to the poor. Right now effectively half of Social Security is a welfare system that transfers money from the middle class to the poor. WHY should the Rich be exempt from the same effect on all of their income? Answer: they have good lobbyists who payoff congress.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
Look at the formula at step 5 of this link. First you calculate your lifetime indexed earnings for the highest 35 years. (Of course many people work for longer than that but the additional years are not counted.) Then divide by 420 months (which is 35 years) to get your average monthly indexed income. Up to $926 per month you get 90% of your income. From $927 to $5583 per month, the payout drops to 32%. And anything over $5583 the payout drops to only 15%. The point is that the upper bracket payout is only 1/6 of the lower bracket. No indexing adjustment is done for high cost areas. Finally the sum of the three brackets is adjusted somewhat for your age & how long you wait to start benefits.
https://socialsecurityreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Social-Security-2018-Trustees-Report.pdf
2. Secondly, more of Social Security is going to Disability than what was long anticipated. The Full program is called OASDI - Old-Age, Survivors, Disability Insurance. This makes it even more of a welfare system not like a normal percentage pension. Why are the rich exempt from having to pay into this welfare program on ALL of their income, just like the middle class? Answer: they have far better lobbyists.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/04/11/1-in-20-of-working-age-americans-receives-disability-benefits/
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/explaining-disability-growth.pdf
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
3. For middle class workers, if you work part time in retirement, your Soc. Security benefit is cut. This doesn't really affect the rich since it is such a tiny percent of their total income, because they had such a massive exemption due to the CAP. https://budgeting.thenest.com/social-security-benefits-tax-brackets-30105.html
Also, starting in 1984, Federal law subjected up to 50 percent of an individual’s or couple’s OASDI benefits to Federal income taxation. After 1993, the law increased the maximum percentage from 50 percent to 85 percent. This is double taxation. But the rich only complain about double taxation in the form of estate or corporate tax.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2019 - 08:19pm PT
|
Yeah , but look what happen to Venezuela....
|
|
formerclimber
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2019 - 10:36pm PT
|
can you succinctly define the concept of "ownership"
Ownership is when you have real life capacity to defend your control of something...while you can defend it. There's no any kind of "right" to ownership of anything, in reality.
While you can defend your veggie patch from the rabbits, it's all good...once there're too many hungry rabbits...your cabbage isn't yours anymore...it's rabbits'.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2019 - 09:01am PT
|
Then there's shared ownership of property.
Harley (the cat) owns our rocky & convuluted 5 acres during the day. But the coyotes & the two Great Horned Owls that roost outside our house, own those 5 acres at night.
|
|
ManMountain
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2019 - 04:34pm PT
|
It is incorrect to think there is a rational reason for the cap on income subject to Social Security tax.
Wow, a reasoned response! Yes, SS is slightly a transfer tax, and the uber-rich get off scott-free concerning a big contribution for no rewards, fair enough and SS is a rickety old system that needs some tweaks to stay solvent. But it works pretty damn good overall.
Please do not conflate Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) which is federally funded with SS which is member/employer funded. I've more than a few friends who are on SSI/SSI because of morbid obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, fake illnesses like fibromyalgia, IBS, etc. and are sucking the go'vmnt's teat. That's basically largess at the general public's expense. Better would be the church/homeless services ORGs dealing with such losers & if there's not enough lucre' to go around, f*ck 'em, get up off your lazy ass and find employment.
Sorry to be so cynical but I see it everywhere. I've a friend who's on SSDI who I interact with regularly, Frisbee at the park, long hikes & general mobile fun, but she always shows up at the SS office in her wheelchair barely able to sign the papers. The system is susceptible to scammers. SS as presently constituted is not.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2019 - 05:35pm PT
|
MM, you forgot all the cops and firemen who are on disability for their bad backs in addition
to their SS and $100K pensions at the ripe old age of 50. It must be tough.
|
|
Robb
Social climber
Cat Box
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2019 - 06:36pm PT
|
Riley,
I know what you mean, but the guys I know earned it!
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2019 - 08:05pm PT
|
And the answer no one wants to hear is: No one f*#king cares about West Virginia.
Just watched Blood on the Mountain which seems to back up that statement.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Various reasonable ways to eliminate tax loopholes for the rich:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/opinion/aoc-wealth-tax.html
1. Raise the rate on capital gains and dividends to be the same as ordinary income, since there is no good reason for the overall rate to be higher on the middle class.
2. For example, the United States should eliminate the provision that forgives unpaid capital gains taxes on assets held at death.
3. In 2016, the Obama administration provided a helpful list of candidates: They range from jettisoning the special deductions and credits that producers of fossil fuels enjoy to eliminating the notorious carried interest provision, which allows private equity managers (including me) to pay the lower capital gains rate on what is effectively ordinary income. Of course, if capital gains were taxed as ordinary income, that problem goes away.
4. Another fruitful area for loophole-closing is the provisions that allow many real estate guys (including President Trump) to pay little, if any tax. For example, while the 2017 tax bill eliminated the rule allowing owners of most appreciated assets to avoid tax by exchanging them for other comparable assets, that loophole was left in place for owners of real estate. So a landlord who sells one building can avoid paying capital gains taxes on the profits when he uses those profits to buy another investment property.
5. If you're an individual in a high cost area, the total deduction for state taxes maximum is $10000 thanks to federal political nasties. Middle income in some high cost areas is easily $110000 which would result in California state tax of $7500. Then if you buy a home which will easily cost at least $700,000, the property tax at 1.19% is $8330. So you are $5830 over the deductions limit if you are middle class. HOWEVER if you are rich you will put the property in the ownership of a holding company, which has no such limits on tax deductions. Yet again, special loopholes for the rich.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Robb, many studies have shown that the majority have not. The LA Times showed one of
SoCal police departments a number of which had 50% of their officers on ‘disability’!
Come on, I wasn’t born yesterday. Besides, if they put down the donuts... A high percentage
of cops in Europe actually look like they could run a high percentage of perps down, without
then needing to go on disability.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!