What you economic illiterates don't comprehend!

[NightFox]

Because one person's wage is higher than the other.

What does that have to do with the fact than when one person is subsidizing another person under the auspices of a government program that it's commonly known as "welfare"? Or would you like to continue chewing on your tongue attempting to insist on "entitlement" even though you can't explain why one person is "entitled" to another persons money?

What does this have to do with the economics and/or fiscal issue? Nothing. It's an emotional argument you're trying to make about "fairness".

LOL, You're the one that's trying to argue about "fairness", after all you're the only one that even brought it up (REPEATEDLY), I'm the one that's been pointing out that you don't understand the concept of welfare and why it applies in this case.

Personally when it comes to a national retirement program like SS, I don't find the subsidies inherent in the system "fair" or "unfair", if such programs are going to exist (and given the current political conditions it's all but inevitable that they will) there isn't any other way it could work, I just wouldn't design it the way that SS is designed.

Here endth the lesson.

Next time try to take off those blinders that are impairing your reason before engaging your keyboard.

 

[The Derp]

What does that have to do with the fact than when one person is subsidizing another person.

But that's not what's happening at all. Removing the cap on taxable SS income doesn't mean that those who make below the cap amount aren't suddenly paying into the entitlement. So again, you're making an emotional argument of "fairness", while pretending you're not making an emotional argument.

under the auspices of a government program that it's commonly known as "welfare"? Or would you like to continue chewing on your tongue attempting to insist on "entitlement" even though you can't explain why one person is "entitled" to another persons money?

Welfare is something you get for nothing. Entitlements are earned benefits. I don't get why you can't tell the difference. Probably because you don't really understand either, and you never will. And again, you're making a very highly emotional argument of "fairness", while pretending you're not making a highly emotional argument. I think you're just an emotional person unable to contain your emotions. All your arguments come from the "lizard brain". You're not putting any thought into them. Besides, people who get SS today are getting more than they put in anyway. So...

LOL, You're the one that's trying to argue about "fairness", after all you're the only one that even brought it up (REPEATEDLY), I'm the one that's been pointing out that you don't understand the concept of welfare and why it applies in this case.

By imagining that entitlements are welfare, you are making an emotional argument of fairness...the argument you're making is why is it fair for the rich to pay more in entitlements than everyone else? That's your argument. That's what happens when you invoke "welfare" and try to apply it to entitlements. Again, entitlements are earned benefits, welfare isn't. You don't seem capable of making the distinction between the two because you're an emotionally unstable person.

Personally when it comes to a national retirement program like SS, I don't find the subsidies inherent in the system "fair" or "unfair", if such programs are going to exist (and given the current political conditions it's all but inevitable that they will) there isn't any other way it could work, I just wouldn't design it the way that SS is designed.

Yes you do! You're pretending that it's welfare. Right now, the people who get SS are getting more than they put in. So does that mean you think SS is currently a welfare program? It doesn't seem like you've given this much thought. What a disappointment.

 

[NightFox]

But that's not what's happening at all. Removing the cap on taxable SS income doesn't mean that those who make below the cap amount aren't suddenly paying into the entitlement. So again, you're making an emotional argument of "fairness", while pretending you're not making an emotional argument.

*YAWN*

What do you call it when one person pays in X + Y and another person pays in X but both receive the exact same benefit amount? isn't the second person receiving a handout of some portion of Y? how does the second person become "entitled" to that portion of Y?

Apparently you have not yet reached the point of satiation with respect to chewing on your own tongue and I'm beginning to doubt you ever will.

 

[The Derp]

*YAWN*

You gotta ask; why post if you're not going to post anything meaningful or substantial? This is less a repudiation of my post and more a cry for attention from you.

What do you call it when one person pays in X + Y and another person pays in X but both receive the exact same benefit amount? isn't the second person receiving a handout of some portion of Y? how does the second person become "entitled" to that portion of Y?Apparently you have not yet reached the point of satiation with respect to chewing on your own tongue and I'm beginning to doubt you ever will.

I answered your bullshit loaded question two different ways in two different posts and you ignored both. That's because you simply cannot handle the emotional weight of being confronted on your shit rhetoric.

And that's because your shit parents did a shit job raising their shit kid.

You have a lot of growing up to do, junior.

 

[NightFox]

*YAWN*

You gotta ask; why post if you're not going to post anything meaningful or substantial?

Actually I was avoiding asking you that question; You appear to take such delight in engaging in your own little internal narrative and building legions of little straw men that I didn't want to be the one to spoil your fun.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Rich guy pays twice as much, five times as much, ten times as much into it, but gets an identical benefit.....no longer an "insurance program". Sorry.

So you're main argument is a matter of semantics. You don't have an actual economic or fiscal argument against it, just the emotional one you always tend to make.

Semantics? No.
I'm against giving people who contributed 2, 5 or 10 times as much, the same benefit as you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Heritage analysis, based on the SSA's own projections, shows that eliminating the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax would generate only enough revenue to push back the date of the system's bankruptcy a few years. It would be the largest tax increase in U.S. historySSA

Shocking that Heritage would pretend this.

I'd much prefer the analysis done for PBS newshour by those who haven't been wrong about everything they've predicted like Heritage has.

So try again. Show your work.

Shocking that Heritage would pretend this.

Well, gosh, Heritage said that raising the cap while raising the benefit doesn't help past a few years..

So what were they pretending?

I'd much prefer the analysis done for PBS newshour

PBS said eliminating the cap while leaving the benefit unchanged fixes the crappy system for 60 more years.

So try again. Show your work.

Try to show that Heritage agrees with my claim? LOL!
Why don't you find a PBS analysis that refutes my claim? Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Currently the base changes. Tread softly.

Again, what is it you think that proves? You didn't say. You just dodged and diverted per your normal routine. That's because you don't know what you're saying, isn't it? You have your compulsion to respond, even though your response means and says nothing.

Again, what is it you think that proves?

It proves that lifting the cap and capping the benefit would be a massive change.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Life expectancy in 1980 was 73.61 years in 2015 it was 78.74 years, that's nearly a 7% increase, IMHO you need to work on your definition of "largely flat" since the curve between the two years is distinctly upward sloping.

OK, and if you look at that within the overall historical trends, what is it you then see? Did life expectancy rise faster prior to 1980 than since? Why yes, it did. So that's why I'm saying it's largely flat when placed in the context of the overall trend. The biggest jump in life expectancy happened between 1965 and 1980. Wonder what caused that? Oh right, Medicare.

What do you call it when one person pays in X + Y and another person pays in X but both receive the exact same benefit amount? isn't the second person receiving a handout of some portion of Y? how does the second person become "entitled" to that portion of Y?

^^So this isn't an economic or fiscal argument, this is an emotional argument.^^

You're a very emotionally unstable person, aren't you?

You're trying to make this an issue of "fairness" which is hysterical because that concept doesn't mean shit to you when it comes to taxes. So now you're suddenly all concerned about fairness? LOL! You expect me to believe that?

OK, and if you look at that within the overall historical trends, what is it you then see? Did life expectancy rise faster prior to 1980 than since?

That's probably why Reagan and Greenspan had to raise Social Security taxes and raise the age for full benefits.

So that's why I'm saying it's largely flat when placed in the context of the overall trend.

Ohhhhh....so in the overall trend your error (lie), isn't really an error (lie) because a 5 year increase is the same as flat.

Why don't you just admit you were wrong (lied)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Says who?SSA

Really? Where do they say that?

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf

^
Here.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you don't know.

The Heritage analysis, based on the SSA's own projections, shows that eliminating the cap on wages subject to the Social Security tax would generate only enough revenue to push back the date of the system's bankruptcy a few years. It would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history

Here's a real analysis from AARP that stacks up the pro- and con- arguments including the one from your Heritage paper (the "con"). Clearly, the con argument needs some work because it's just an emotional argument in the end. There's no economic or fiscal argument against lifting the cap; there's only a half-assed argument about "fairness" for the ultra-rich that is purely emotional.

So we have an economic and fiscal argument for removing the cap.

You only have a highly emotional and hysterical argument against removing the cap. And you're assuming that benefits won't be capped for max earners, which they would be in any proposal like this. So right away, your argument comes from a dishonest place because you're constructing straw men.

Your emotions don't mean shit, BTW. They'e not important. They're not significant. They're not an effective or credible counter-argument to the economics and fiscal argument made.

There's no economic or fiscal argument against lifting the cap;

No argument against a big tax hike? DERP!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That wasn't your assertion, your assertion was "largely flat" the curve isn't largely flat by any reasonable interpretation since I think any reasonable person would conclude that a 7% increase in their expected lifespan isn't insignificant.

7% increase over 35 years isn't largely flat? If the economy grew only 7% over 35 years, would you say that growth was largely flat? I would.

LOL, it's not an argument at all, it's a question designed to determine whether or not you understand the concept behind social welfare programs, apparently you don't since the best you could muster was an attempt at a vapid insult followed by a straw man construction project.

No, it's an emotional argument because it hinges on the "fairness" of capping benefits for high earners. That's the only argument you're making...that removing the cap on taxable SS income and capping benefits for high earners wouldn't be fair to the high earners. That's your argument. Nothing fiscal, nothing economic, just pure emotion and semantics.

If you are paying into an entitlement, then it's an entitlement. Welfare is something for nothing. Which is what Conservatives use to pay for their tax cuts.

7% increase over 35 years isn't largely flat?

Not when you look at paying benefits for 5 more years than you expected.
In 1980, you were looking at collecting from 65-73.61. On average.
In 2015, you'll collect from 67-78.74. On average.

36% longer collection period. Is that "largely flat"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not unless you don't understand statistics and margin of diminishing returns with respect to life expectancy.

Well, that sounds like you're pulling right from your ass in order to win a semantic argument you can then use as a red herring to gaslight the actual discussion. But fine.

LOL, since we're comparing apples and oranges, why not throw in a comparison between the relative merits of traveling by jet versus holding your breath under water? HINT: just because the increase in two things are measured in annual percentage terms it doesn't mean that it's rational to compare their nominal growth rates.

So this is "I'm going to apply my own personal standard to this argument without bothering to look at historical context because I'm a propagandist who can't formulate a coherent and cogent argument". That's basically it from you. No substance.

LOL, I didn't even mention "fairness" nor did it even cross my mind....

Yes you did, whether you realize you did it or not. Your counter argument to my argument of removing the cap on taxable SS income is that you'd have to increase benefits for everyone. I'm saying that presumption isn't a written rule anywhere. Capping an entitlement benefit doesn't suddenly make the entitlement welfare (SS benefits are capped now already). Entitlements are something you earn by paying into. Welfare is something you get without paying anything. So explain how capping entitlement benefits for high earners suddenly transforms -even conceptually- Social Security into welfare even though recipients are still paying into the entitlement prior to getting their benefits? You haven't -nor has any Conservative- been able to make that connection simply because entitlements are earned and welfare isn't.

How is that one person has to pay more for the same exact "entitlement" than another person? Isn't the first person subsidizing the second persons "entitlement" and isn't that the very definition of what's commonly known as a social welfare program?.

We all subsidize everyone's retirement because everyone who works pays into the entitlements, thus earning those benefits. You would have an argument if Person A wasn't paying anything into the entitlement, but receiving the entitlement anyway. That would be welfare. But that's not what's happening. So again, you're making an emotional argument about "fairness", namely that it's not "fair" that a rich person pays more into entitlements and doesn't get more back. That's the only argument you're making against this. And it's a pretty shitty one too. And besides, the people getting Social Security today are getting more than what they paid into it. So already, the principle you're trying to argue is one that happens now.

Entitlements are something you earn by paying into. Welfare is something you get without paying anything. So explain how capping entitlement benefits for high earners suddenly transforms -even conceptually- Social Security into welfare even though recipients are still paying into the entitlement prior to getting their benefits?

Entitlement Programs of the federal government include Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment and Welfare Programs. Entitlement programs are rights granted to citizens and certain non-citizens by federal law. Entitlement programs can be broken into non-contributory and contributory programs. Non-contributory programs are free handouts - they equal "something for nothing". Contributory programs must be earned - they equal "something for something".

Non-contributory Programs - Welfare

Welfare Programs include 13 separate programs to fight poverty (see U.S. Welfare Programs) and the Medicaid Program which provides health care to low-income Americans. Welfare Programs and Medicaid are non-contributory, meaning recipients are entitled to the benefits even though they have made no contributions to the programs through taxes. Welfare Programs are targeted to low-income individuals and families. While the programs represent a legal right available to all Americans, the exercise of that right is fully dependent on the level of income of the individual of family. Only low-income Americans qualify for benefits.

Contributory Programs

Entitlement Programs also include Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment insurance. Social Security provides retirement and disability benefits, Medicare provides health care for elderly Americans and Unemployment Insurance provides benefits to working age adults out of work. All Americans and their employers must participate in the programs by paying payroll taxes as defined by federal law. While the programs are an entitlement available to all Americans in order to qualify for benefits recipients must have worked and made contributions to the programs by paying taxes.

Entitlement Programs

DERP!

 

[ph3iron]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

 

[JoeB131]

No, as a matter of fact, they didn't.

1) It was AGAINST THE LAW

2) It was not an issue of "putting safety at risk" -- they were striking for more money, and for less hours --- they wanted to get a full salary for 32 hrs/week that was earned 40 hrs/week.

Neither of these impacted safety -

Because- wait for it- a 40 hour week wasn't safe when you are directing hundreds of aircraft with vintage 1981 equipment. That's what they were striking against.

But Old Ronnie Ray-gun, he was all keen to bust them unions.

 

[ph3iron]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

You can't prove a guy with his mind made up wrong.
"Economic illiterates "tells you how accepting our economics PhD is
The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.
See the CEO video? How many will creste jobs?
No hands went up??
I Hope Marc Levinson (max was 1973, everything since confirms we can't get over 3% CONTINUALLY ) is wrong

The last time we repatriated (10 years ago?) companies bought back stock.

Oh no!!! That's awful, just terrible!!!

Why is that awful?

Who said it was awful?
Not for me, will add to my millions.
That's why I always vote republican.
And even for the C grabber

Good old American way, I've got mine, screw the uneducated

 

[ph3iron]

No, as a matter of fact, they didn't.

1) It was AGAINST THE LAW

2) It was not an issue of "putting safety at risk" -- they were striking for more money, and for less hours --- they wanted to get a full salary for 32 hrs/week that was earned 40 hrs/week.

Neither of these impacted safety -

Because- wait for it- a 40 hour week wasn't safe when you are directing hundreds of aircraft with vintage 1981 equipment. That's what they were striking against.

But Old Ronnie Ray-gun, he was all keen to bust them unions.

Hey, let's go back to 12 year olds working 7 days a week.
And these days maybe getting groped!!

 

[otto105]

Part of the tax reform is reducing corporate taxes to 20%.
Many of you truly economic illiterates don't understand the gigantic economic benefit of this one single change.
A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

So if the USA by lowering corporate taxes is able to repatriate just 10% or $2 trillion back to the USA what would be
the effect?
Let's assume of the $2 trillion it breaks down this way:
$1 trillion is re-invested in the stock market, bank accounts US treasuries you name it.
Leaves $1 trillion.
Let's assume then $500 billion is used to hire people for 10 years at $50,000 per year.
Well as most of the economic illiterates don't know, an employer pays an equal % for SS/Medicare 6.2%
So let's add to the $50,000 another $3,000 and round up to $60,000 for benefits,SS/Medicare,etc.
That means of the $500 billion divided by 10 years $50 billion a year or divided by $60,000 or total of 800,000 jobs.
That $50 billion in payroll means in Federal taxes: 12.4% SS/Medicare/income taxes: $18.7 billion to Federal govt.
Now the multiplier effect comes in to play:http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/research/webpapers/paper_13143.pdf
"Every $1 million spent is multiplied by 1.18 or $50 billion spent by employees: $60 billion back into the GDP.
Now this is JUST from hiring 800,000 people for 10 years.
Net gains therefore to the Federal government:

$187 billion in tax revenue alone in 10 years.
GDP increasing over $600 billion in 10 years.

AND this is just from 1/4th left of the $2 trillion repatriated.

Now if you economic illiterates want some further validation for what this means from the other 3/4ths of
the $2 trillion repatriated please ask as it gets EVEN better i.e. the multiplier EFFECT!!!

Prove me wrong .... PLEASE!!!

If capital inflows create wealth for people to spend, how does that work in Ireland?

 

[sartre play]

Um, yeah, if these guys were striking for better equipment and better hours

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't. But never mind, you guys have your own history of why Reagan endangered air travelers and broke up the Middle Class being a good thing.

Is that why they broke the law?

Well, no, they didn't.

At 7 a.m. on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay, and a 32-hour workweek (a four-day week and a eight-hour day combined). In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In striking, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia

You can put out whatever babble you want, but they had every right to strike to address working conditions that were putting safety at risk.

Safety, people flying in planes need air traffic control people well trained with decent paying jobs. wonder if the safety records have gone up or down? & would better planes flying less hours equate to better safety.