France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism

[The2ndAmendment]

Although Toro and I disagree on the Federal Reserve (which I consider to be the Great Satan), I have to admit, Toro has really handed your asses to you.

 

[NightFox]

I've been involved in pensions most of my career. I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it. Most people don't.

Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion.

To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them. Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want.

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity. I will show you how it works later.

Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.

First, I'm explaining, not defending, the accounting. I'm also saying that simply because companies have to create GAAP- compliant financial statements, it doesn't mean governments need to as well. Government accounting already is similar to a cash flow statement under GAAP. Governments are not profit-seeking enterprises, nor do they pay taxes, which are reasons to create a GAAP compliant income statement in the first place. This system has been in place since c1980. The idea that the government "raided" SS under Clinton is utter nonsense.

Defending and explaining appears to be distinction without difference (but I will take your word for it) and again as far as GAAP goes (which is not restricted to profit seeking enterprises BTW) is a valid measure to determine the validity of federal government accounting with respect to the accuracy of the financial state of the federal government as reported. I also never indicated that the government had "raided" anything, what I've been saying all along is that the federal government has a legal OBLIGATION to the SSA "trust fund" which is why it is required to "borrow" money from it in the first place. This has been true since day 1 and wasn't changed when the SSA revenue and general funds accounts were consolidated in the late 1960's.

The trusts have been cash flow positive for most of their existence. The argument is that because Treasury securities are considered to be the safest securities, then the trusts should only be invested in Treasury securities.

This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.

So the government can either create a trust fund that buys Treasury securities in the open market, or it can create a system that replicates the exact same thing without disrupting the bond market. In either case, the economics are exactly the same. The assets of the trusts are the liabilities of the Treasury. If you net them out, you get the net debt, but one stream of cash flow isn't causing double counting of liabilities.

That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue.

If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations.

We could go through examples of how the exact same thing wouldn't fly with respect to private businesses and their own pension funds but I suspect you already know that.

 

[Toro]

This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.

I definitely agree with that. SS should be run like a real pension plan, and people should be allowed to opt out of it and invest directly themselves. Other countries are doing this now.

That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue.

I don't understand this. Is there something in the law I don't know about? Otherwise, where does the data for the total debt come from you posted earlier? The government does publish the accounts of the trusts. You can see the most recent results here.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr13summary.pdf

If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations.

Again, I don't understand your argument. The government did meet all of its legal obligations and did use the excess cash to pay off publicly-traded debt.

The operating budget was in deficit. That's what you're arguing. I don't disagree. What I'm arguing is that it is accepted convention to include all receipts and disbursements to define a surplus. Had the operating budget been in surplus, more of the public debt would have been paid down as public debt was still in the trillions and the budget surplus was in the hundreds of millions. Bush opted to give everyone a tax cut, arguing that we could afford one given the surpluses. Americans agreed and voted him in. But had the operating budget been budget been in surplus, it doesn't necessarily preclude a tax cut.

I can't remember what exactly the budget looked like, but it was something like this

Operating budget
Revenues $2000
Spending $2100
Deficit $-100

Trusts
Revenues $1000
Payments $700
Surplus $300

Consolidated surplus $200

Liabilities before the fiscal year would have looked like this
Publicly traded debt $2000
Liabilities to the trusts $1000
Total liabilities $3000

After the fiscal year, it would have looked like this
Publicly traded debt $1800
Liabilities to the trusts $1300
Total liabilities $3100

That's what happened in the 1990s. The surplus of the trusts are a liability of the government. This is known and published each year. So I'm not sure where you say they don't have a legal liability.

Had the operating budget been $100 in surplus instead of $100 in deficit, the balance sheet would have looked like this

Publicly traded debt $1600
Liabilities to the trusts $1300
Total liabilities $2900

So even though the liabilities to the trusts would have risen, publicly traded debt would have declined by more, and the total debt of the government would have fallen instead of rising. So the only difference between the operating budget being in deficit or surplus is the amount of publicly traded debt that would have been paid off.

I often here the argument that "If the government really had a surplus, they would have paid down the SS debt," which is what you are arguing in your brackets. But that argument misunderstands the nature of the trusts. The liabilities of the trust are the actuarial estimates of future payments to participants. These can't be paid down. (They can be altered by law.) The excesses could be invested in tradable securities I guess, i.e. Treasury securities. But this wouldn't change the liabilities of the government at all, just the composition of those liabilities.

 

[daveman]

[
So, you either had grounds, but didn't sue...or was fired for cause and couldn't sue.

Either way, it's your own damn fault, isn't it?

So stop whining about it.

Or I had grounds, but didn't think suing was worth the effort. I mean, yeah, I could have done years and years of court proceedings, but frankly, I just moved on.

It doesn't mean that I think that it was a good thing, or that we won't be better off the sooner we get the private sector the fuck out of health care.

[

When you use your own bigotry to prove a point, all you prove is that you're a bigot.

No, it's just reality. If you really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes, you have a child-like ability to reason, and therefore can't be trusted. If it weren't for the stupid fucks voting for guys who are "right with Jesus", we'd have fixed this country's problem by now.






Guy, your link came from TownHall. you might as well have posted from StormFront.




Guy, we are better off than we were in 2008. Obama won re-election. Facts and Logic are that you guys made your best case, and couldn't.





I have. the problem with your theory is that you assume that the poor and undeserving are going to compliantly die if a big corporation can't make money off of them. Well, some do. But most just go to an emergency room and skip out on the bill.

The number of doctors are completely irrelevent to the issue. We have enough doctors. We just aren't using them efficiently.



Were we at war with Syria? Last time I checked, we weren't.

[

True, it's not single payer and getting the employers and insurance companies out of the picture, yet.

Did I ever tell you Communists are stupid? True story!

Guy, the UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, France, and Italy all do it that way.

They aren't "Communist".

They all have higher life expectencies.
They all have lower infant mortality rates.
They all spend less per capita than we do.
Medical Crises do not cause bankruptcies.

Wow. Just...wow. All of it.

 

[daveman]

By that logic, someone should have developed that car.

The technology is there, but the fact is, no one wants to drive that car. They want the power windows and the AC and the muscle engine...

So argument fail, again.

The problem with Plutocratic Apologists like yourself is that you've convinced yourselves the parasites are vital organs.

"By that logic, someone should have developed that car."

But no one has. That proves your logic is faulty.

Look at the societies that are set up the way you want.

Failures, every one.

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

 

[JoeB131]

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

 

[NightFox]

This is not in dispute, although we could have a whole different discussion about the wisdom of limiting SSA "investments" to only treasuries.

I definitely agree with that. SS should be run like a real pension plan, and people should be allowed to opt out of it and invest directly themselves. Other countries are doing this now.

I'm glad we can agree on one point at least.

That's not the contention here, the contention here is that government isn't DOUBLE counting liabilities it's that it's not counting some liabilities at all, as in it doesn't count the legal liability it has to the SSA trust fund with respect to SSA revenue.

I don't understand this. Is there something in the law I don't know about? Otherwise, where does the data for the total debt come from you posted earlier? The government does publish the accounts of the trusts. You can see the most recent results here.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr13summary.pdf

I think you know about it but are missing it, the federal government has a legal obligation to "invest" excess SSA revenue into the SSA "trust fund" (under current federal law), it's right there in the PDF you linked. They're just not accounting for that legal obligation when they report a "surplus".

If the federal government had an ACTUAL surplus at the end of the year it would be in a situation where it had some amount of cash left over after meeting all of it's legal obligations (which one would hope would be rebated to the tax payers who overpaid on their tax bills that year or at least applied to future liabilities which are not funded by projected future tax receipts), however this is not what happened, what it had at the end of the year was a pile of new debt obligations against future tax receipts, that isn't a surplus it's a deficit and it explains exactly why the National Debt increased every year under President Clinton even though the federal government tried to pass off the lie to the public that it took in more money than it spent on it's obligations.

Again, I don't understand your argument. The government did meet all of its legal obligations and did use the excess cash to pay off publicly-traded debt.

I'm not sure how to put the fact that an excess of debt isn't the same thing as a surplus of cash any more simply than I already have but I'll give it one last shot; the national debt (intra-governmental holdings + public debt) as reported by the treasury increased every year under Clinton which clearly demonstrates a case of the former rather than a case of the latter. In my book reporting that to the public as a "surplus" is an attempt to deceive the public into believing that it's a case of the latter.

The operating budget was in deficit. That's what you're arguing. I don't disagree. What I'm arguing is that it is accepted convention to include all receipts and disbursements to define a surplus.

... and therein lies the point of contention my friend, that the federal government has redefined the meaning of surplus to include a scenario which involves an increase of outstanding debt, I (along with others more knowledgeable about accounting than I) don't agree with that definition, You apparently do, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Bush opted to give everyone a tax cut, arguing that we could afford one given the surpluses. Americans agreed and voted him in. But had the operating budget been budget been in surplus, it doesn't necessarily preclude a tax cut.

Just a minor point of order on this , Bush + Congress didn't cut taxes , he shifted them into the future since he continued to run a net operating deficit throughout his two terms, the hope was that the increased economic activity would generate sufficient revenues to offset the "cuts", didn't work out that way.

I often here the argument that "If the government really had a surplus, they would have paid down the SS debt," which is what you are arguing in your brackets

No it's not what I'm arguing in my brackets, what I'm pointing out there is the possibility that the federal government utilizes an actual surplus of cash to shore up it's unfunded future liabilities (which aren't limited to SS, since they also include Medicare and the other various federal pension funds), unfortunately federal law makes the "maneuverability" of this rather limited since in most cases it prohibits the federal government from purchasing marketable securities from external entities, I'm just assuming (hoping) there's some wiggle room in there somewhere that would allow for this.

Anywho, great talking to you and interesting conversation, hope you have an excellent weekend!

 

[daveman]

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Yes. It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy: People like you.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Yes. It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy: People like you.

Ummm....wolves don't vote.

And frankly, if you are taking more than your fair share, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.

This is where you guys fucked it up, you see. If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.

20 years, you guys will miss Obama. Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

The over 100% is immaterial, the interesting part of the story is what they did that caused it to happen, the French Government in effect enacted what amounts to a taxation Bill of Attainder, whereby in CY 2012 they added an additional one-time levy to income in CY 2011 on certain people and then added the levy to their CY 2012 income tax bill.

Fortunately the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids Bills of Attainder and thus prevents our completely immoral, government worshiping statists from pulling the same sort of egregious nonsense here, Although I suspect there's a whole bunch of "progressive" think tank creatures sitting around trying to figure out how they can formulate some plausible statist apologias for proposing something similar to go back in time and re-write the past tax rates on "rich people".

They do it anyway! I got a retroactive tax bill for 2011 a couple weeks ago.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...

Also, how is it fair if we only had one choice? You could either vote for Obama, or vote for this other guy named Romney, who was no different from Obama.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...

We should be so lucky...

The only problem with the Teabaggers is that just don't know they are dupes...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

20 years, you guys will miss Obama. Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.

I think you're right, but it won't be class wars, it will be Civil Wars the next time around.

 

[JoeB131]

20 years, you guys will miss Obama. Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.

I think you're right, but it won't be class wars, it will be Civil Wars the next time around.

Not really. I mean, I remember the last time you gun whacks starting talking shit.

It was the 1990's, and you guys all talked about forming militias and stuff.

And then Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City happened, and you guys all scampered off with your tails betwix your legs when the FBI and ATF started paying attention to you.

 

[Jarlaxle]

s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.

Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.

Like I've said multiple times if you really care about the truth and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?

I've been involved in pensions most of my career. I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it. Most people don't.

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity. I will show you how it works later.

No need, I can explain exactly how Social Security works easily: LINK.

 

[daveman]

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Yes. It's fair like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

There's a very good reason we don't have direct democracy: People like you.

Ummm....wolves don't vote.

And frankly, if you are taking more than your fair share, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.

This is where you guys fucked it up, you see. If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.

20 years, you guys will miss Obama. Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.

D'jever notice the class war is being fought only by people with no class?

You really should't vandalize property that way.

 

[JoeB131]

Nice, Dave, you published a picture without context.

The traffic sign would indicate this was not taken in the USA>

Looks like somewhere in the UK.

Incidently, I think all the forms of anarchism, whether it be the OWS movement or the Libertarians are kind of scary. But you can kind of see why they happen when the economy doesn't work well for most of us and every day becomes a struggle, right?

 

[daveman]

Okay, let's have a VOTE on what's fair.

Oh, wait. We did that. Obama got a second term.

Are you sure? It seems that the IRS was obliterating the Tea Party during the election season...

We should be so lucky...

The only problem with the Teabaggers is that just don't know they are dupes...

No, your problem with them is they know you're one.

 

[JoeB131]

So what is the equivlent to Godwin's law for folks who scream "communism" when losing an argument?

Guy, I used to be as Right Wing as you are, until I realized there's a big old line between the bosses and the rest of us.

And I only care about what happens on MY side of the line.

 

[tooAlive]

And frankly, if you are taking more than your fair share, you shouldn't be surprised when the rest of us vote to take it back.

So, you're admitting that you feel entitled to part of the share we earned ourselves?

Because any part of our share belongs to us. Regardless of what you think is fair or not.

This is where you guys fucked it up, you see. If you kept letting the middle class have a comfortable lifestyle, like we had before that senile fuck Reagan, there would never have been an Obama.

20 years, you guys will miss Obama. Because the next guy coming down the pike is going to be a much bigger class warrior than he ever was.

I doubt that.

This last presidential race was close, and Obama doesn't seem to be gaining much support as time goes on. People have started to open their eyes, and leftism isn't doing them much good 5 years later.