- This topic has 1 reply, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”loraine”] I understand it’s Federal Income tax…the original 7.65%, however, is fica w/h, isn’t it? I think it used to be broken down 6.2% for social security and 1.45% for medicare, yes? Does that money go and stay in those programs? And do those who choose not to work pay payroll taxes (fica w/h). And doesn’t the bad, mean corporations have to match those w/h? I’m not talking talking about p/r taxes–fica/med.
I want to know where my fed w/h is going and why I have to pay it and others don’t? I have to pay a mortgage, property taxes, health insurance, etc.,and ‘choose’ to live beneath my means and sacrifice. Why am I doing that again? [/quote]
Since I’m retired I haven’t kept up with the percentage that is withheld for SS and Medicare but, yes, the money stays with the programs.
Here’s the kicker… the Social Security Act requires that the fund can ONLY be invested in instruments that carry the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The ONLY instruments that fit that description are federal debt. Federal bonds have the poorest return of any investment at 2.651% per year. The SS fund is the single largest holder at 17.9% ($2,427,598,000,000) of the total federal debt. The return paid to SS for that investment is $64,355,622,980.
Since end-of-year 1932 (i.e., after the crash) the Dow Jones has paid an average of 11.1% per year (7.0% in gains, plus 4.2% in dividends). If 10% of the SS fund had been allowed to be invested in the Dow there wouldn’t be an issue with its funding.
The inability of those we elect to congress to foresee possible future issues such as this or to take corrective measures when these issues appear and their obvious lack of knowledge of economics or economic history is what has caused the major issues that the U.S. economy faces today.
[quote=”loraine”]How much does rich GE pay in taxes? [/quote]
Our congress has elected to provide major tax exemptions, deductions and adjustments to the largest corporations (like GE) at the expense of small and medium sized businesses. This is the reason you hear so many complaints about the corporate taxes. It isn’t the giants that are complaining, it’s the little guy.
[quote=”loraine”]You know, I don’t have a problem with ‘social’ programs…welfare, food stamps, etc. But they should be working for these benefits. If you want this stuff for free, then you can go and work it off whether it be in a homeless shelter, a church, cleaning a park, burger king etc. It gives them a sense of purpose in life as well giving something back for what their getting. And, yes, i would subsidize daycare to get these girls out there working.
I’ll say it…it burns me to see an 18 year old girl walking down the street with 4 kids under the age of 5. Rather than sitting at home, it would make more sense to me to have her daycare subsidized and have her working 40 hours per week. I think she might appreciate her money a little more. [/quote]
I don’t think any of us would disagree with this issue. What happened to the “Workfare” programs started in 1981? Anyone on welfare should be required to enter some kind of job training or educational program that will make them suitable to hold a job while we pay for childcare and other necessities. If they don’t join such a program welfare should be denied.
[quote=”loraine”]And, while I completely understand the one poster about encouraging his parents to get food stamps…I don’t disagree with you at all. they should. Because they have put into the system when others haven’t, they deserve it. But, but, but…this is the way this country is heading…well, everyone gets ‘it’, so why shouldn’t I? this is not directed toward you at all. it is more as a whole where those that work for their money and pay so much in Federal ‘income’ tax are starting to get really angry about the taxes they pay, when they see so many around them, getting something for nothing. it’s a mob mentality…I want something, too.
There is a big difference between poor, lazy and those that just take advantage.
it’s like a bad employee who takes advantage. It so lowers the standard. The good employees see what the dead weight is doing and getting compensated to boot, that the good employee becomes resentful and starts doing the same. And one bad apple has spoiled the whole bunch. [/quote]
That simply isn’t true of the majority but we all know that it happens. I have a brother a year younger than I who spent his entire life sponging off of others rather than to contribute to his own life. He ended up homeless, sleeping on bus stop benches and ended up with frostbite in his feet. He has had both legs amputated and is now living in a home for the indigent. Do you think I feel sorry for him? Not on your life. He was warned what was coming in his future and chose the way he lived. Now he is sponging off of all of us.
[quote=”loraine”]I don’t want to see the elderly or the disabled ever eating cat food, but I also don’t want to see an 18 year old with 4 kids in tow living on welfare. The old folks have paid their dues–and now they will be paying more once their various taxes go up. How much more will the able bodied be paying in entitlements—nothing.
.
99 weekers…they couldn’t find ‘a’ job in 2 years? I’ve been unemployed and it doesn’t take that long to find another. Well, unless you were making 100k and still expect to make that.A flat tax is fair. There are those who pay nothing and those who pay a lot. Level the playing field and that way no one is getting something for nothing. Plus eliminates the tax cheats with those creative tax returns. ? [/quote]
It isn’t the percentage of taxes that we pay or the progressive tax system that is the problem. The problem is the deductions, exemptions and adjustments to both corporate and individual income. If you move to another city to take a job that improves your condition why should the cost of moving be written off as an adjustment? In 1989 I moved from Colorado to California to stay employed in an economic downturn but paid for the move out of my pocket. Why should I expect someone else to pay so that I can stay employed?
[quote=”loraine”]Call me simple, call me simplistic, but things cannot go on as they are. I am by no means wealthy (other than in spirit) or in the 1%, but playing Robinhood doesn’t work. As long as we continue to ‘give’ with expectation of nothing in return from those who take, we will continue to have these problems. It will (already has) create a lazy, stagnant, me,me,me society.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That goes for everybody!!! He was before my time, but makes a lot of sense to me. Where did that sentiment ever go? Now it’s…me,me,me. I expect, I expect, I expect. [/quote]
You are blaming the entire society for the problems created by the few. The vast majority of Americans are ready, willing and able to work. The issue of job availability varies from place to place and from state to state.
If you want to place blame look to the people we are electing to congress. We are electing them based on their belief system, conservative or progressive, rather than on their ability to make intelligent decisions in running the country. To my knowledge there is not one person in the Senate or the House that knows anything about economics, economic history or how the American economy works. Their only interest is playing to “the base” and guaranteeing that they get re-elected to their cushy, do nothing jobs.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself if the last representative elected to your district has done anything to benefit your situation. My bet is that you are not happy with them.[quote=”Scott”]A few relevant comments from Jeff Berwick with which I agree 100%
“The one thing that I would like to get across to people is that the world that we have lived in for the last 40 years has not been real. It’s been built completely on debt and because of that much of what we have seen and done hasn’t been “real.” It’s been a mirage.”
“All that is about to change. The entire western monetary, financial and political system will implode this decade. It all began when Richard Nixon removed the gold backing, “temporarily,” as he stated, from the dollar on August 15, 1971 and since then the entire world has been on a completely fiat, unbacked monetary system. That, combined with a massively growing socialist/fascist democratic nation-state system has meant massive amounts of debt – and great social instability laughingly known as progress.” Jeff Berwick.
[/quote]
I completely agree with the above assessment. Anyone who thinks I sound too much like a zealot when I speak of these matters just doesn’t understand the implications of the coming implosion as I do. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination or perhaps it is disbelief on their parts that such a thing could happen. The damned sky is falling and they want me to calmly, dispassionately discuss the ramifications or be quiet?
No, sprite, what they would like is for you to either contribute one thought that’s new since (say) 2007 or to shut up. Playing the same old broken record over and over and over again accomplishes nothing save to aggravate everyone else.
[quote=”DavidCMurray”]No, sprite, what they would like is for you to either contribute one thought that’s new since (say) 2007 or to shut up. Playing the same old broken record over and over and over again accomplishes nothing save to aggravate everyone else.
[/quote]I did not open this thread. The same subject keeps coming up for discussion with the same responses from people whose minds are still stuck in the old false paradigm. When I see this, I am aggrevated and compelled to participate. It is probably as irritating for me to read these same erroneous ideas from others as it is for you to read my ideas. The difference, however, between me and those of your mind set is our different responses to aggrevation. I come back with discussion. I don’t suggest to anyone else that they “shut up”.
[quote=”sprite”]”The one thing that I would like to get across to people is that the world that we have lived in for the last 40 years has not been real. It’s been built completely on debt and because of that much of what we have seen and done hasn’t been “real.” It’s been a mirage.”
“All that is about to change. The entire western monetary, financial and political system will implode this decade. It all began when Richard Nixon removed the gold backing, “temporarily,” as he stated, from the dollar on August 15, 1971 and since then the entire world has been on a completely fiat, unbacked monetary system. That, combined with a massively growing socialist/fascist democratic nation-state system has meant massive amounts of debt – and great social instability laughingly known as progress.” Jeff Berwick. [/quote]
I agree with Berwick except for the last sentence. Berwick has no idea what true Fascist Socialism is. By definition it is [b][u]“a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”[/u] [/b]The truth is that we are being screwed by those we elect to congress. It doessn’t make any difference whether they are conservative ofr liberal. Their only interest is in getting re-elected.
Nixon should have done what Roosevelt did in 1934 and taken things just a bit further. The price of gold should have been revalued by using the total inflation between 1934 and 1971 then let the price of gold float with the rate of inflation rather than being manipulated by the market. The price of gold today would be above $10,100 per ounce. In my opinion the rate of inflation (and the price of gold) would have been much lower than the above since 1971
[quote=”sprite”]I completely agree with the above assessment. Anyone who thinks I sound too much like a zealot when I speak of these matters just doesn’t understand the implications of the coming implosion as I do. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination or perhaps it is disbelief on their parts that such a thing could happen. The damned sky is falling and they want me to calmly, dispassionately discuss the ramifications or be quiet?[/quote]
Yes, I think you are a zealot but I also know that you are not completely wrong. The advantage I have is 40 years spent researching economics and economic history.
Our elected representatives in congress are economic illiterates who seem determined to believe any scatter-brained economic idea that comes down the road. Every one of the following issues is still correctable today with a little intelligence
1 ~ The gold standard screw up.
2 ~ Since the 1970’s congress has elected to provide tax breaks for those largest corporations to assist them in moving jobs overseas. Along with union busting in the 1970’s these two facts has kept the middle class from keeping up with inflation and encourages using credit. In addition it has placed the corporate tax burden on small and medium businesses who are the job creators.
3 ~ Supply side economics does not work, never has and never will. The middle class drives the American economy as proven by economic history. It didn’t work in 1897 as the “Horse and Sparrow” economic ploy and led to the Panic of 1907, tried again by Reagan it added 36% to the debt to GDP between 1982 and 1995 and again in 2001 added another 29% to the debt to GDP by 2009. Using the date on the following web site and basic 8th grade math will prove that this is true. Gross Public Debt Fiscal Years 1946 to 2009 The wealthy contribute very little to the economy as investors. Foundations and savings plans (401k’s and IRA’s, etc.) are the primary sources of investment and funding of venture capital.
4 ~ Greed drives the financial industry and expecting them to self regulate is a pipe dream. When the SEC left them to do so in the 1980’s led to the S&L meltdown of the late 1980’s and beginning in 2001 led to the housing bubble from 2001 to 2006.
5 ~ George Bush initiated military action on credit for the first time in world history, not once but twice. It can never happen again.
6 ~ Ike Eisenhower warned America about the military/industrial complex in 1960 yet here we are with an outsized defense budget and an over protective homeland security apparatus. The military and defense industry are crying about potential cuts.
7 ~ Every tax cutting legislation since 1980 has impoverished the middle class and thefederal government to the point that it cannot sustain itself and yet we have representatives vowing to cut taxes further rather than to revamp the tax code and get rid of all the give-aways.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
