r > g

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well Comrade, Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts for the workers. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent, but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden for workers was up, not down. Only the Rich got their taxes cut. The workers got a tax increase that made them cost more to employ than foreigners.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax.

Imagine how much wealth those workers would have if all those SS taxes had been invested in the market since 1983.

Of course that would reduce the power of government, so I understand why you oppose it.

I don't oppose having our own payroll investment or investing all that wealth stolen by payroll taxes. But Reagan/Bush did not invest it, they stole it & more & gave it away to the Rich. They did not buy stocks or bonds, they subsidized the Rich with it.

But Reagan/Bush did not invest it

Neither did Obama. Or Clinton.

That reminds me, did you ever find the proof that Clinton and his Dem Congress cut spending?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth?

Let's see, before I get my paycheck, 12.4% of my income is taken out for SS.

How could that make it harder for me to accumulate wealth?

 

[Kimura]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax.

Imagine how much wealth those workers would have if all those SS taxes had been invested in the market since 1983.

Of course that would reduce the power of government, so I understand why you oppose it.

I don't oppose having our own payroll investment or investing all that wealth stolen by payroll taxes. But Reagan/Bush did not invest it, they stole it & more & gave it away to the Rich. They did not buy stocks or bonds, they subsidized the Rich with it.

But Reagan/Bush did not invest it

Neither did Obama. Or Clinton.

That reminds me, did you ever find the proof that Clinton and his Dem Congress cut spending?

The SS trust fund was nothing more than a bookkeeping entry to begin with. The reason FDR created the SS fund was for political reasons, so people thought they had skin the game.

 

[Kimura]

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth?

Let's see, before I get my paycheck, 12.4% of my income is taken out for SS.

How could that make it harder for me to accumulate wealth?

I said FICA was a regressive tax. So we eliminate it, fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month. Problem solved, go find another outrage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth?

Let's see, before I get my paycheck, 12.4% of my income is taken out for SS.

How could that make it harder for me to accumulate wealth?

I said FICA was a regressive tax. So we eliminate it, fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month. Problem solved, go find another outrage.

I said FICA was a regressive tax.

I said SS makes it harder for us to accumulate wealth.
Glad you agree.

fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month

No thanks.

 

[Kimura]

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth?

Let's see, before I get my paycheck, 12.4% of my income is taken out for SS.

How could that make it harder for me to accumulate wealth?

I said FICA was a regressive tax. So we eliminate it, fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month. Problem solved, go find another outrage.

I said FICA was a regressive tax.

I said SS makes it harder for us to accumulate wealth.
Glad you agree.

fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month

No thanks.

God forbid we give seniors or the disabled more purchasing power. Oh, the horror, they'll be blood in the streets.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The self defined conservatives on this and so many other threads lack three characteristic and thus have no credibility at all: 1) As Ideologues they lack perspective; 2) they are not pragmatic; and 3)
they believe everyone has equal ability, equal opportunity and equal representation by the Congress.

Thus they believe those who live in poverty are lazy and their lot in life is singular product of their torpidity; a conclusion based on ignorance, willfully or otherwise.

 

[KissMy]

Exactly - That's why Obama CUT Payroll Taxes so workers could invest their own money. Bush & Reagan increased payroll taxes to subsidize tax cuts for billionaires.

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.

There are no accounts, the budget was unified but the taxes were not. This created the greatest transfer of wealth in history to those making over $2 million a year from the working class.

 

[Kimura]

No. They should invest inside a retirement account. So we can eventually get rid of the Social Security program that makes it so much more difficult for people to accumulate wealth.

How does SS make it harder for us to accumulate wealth? Sure, FICA is regressive, so we should eliminate it, but funding SS out of the general revenue solves that problem. SS boils down the federal government crediting private bank accounts, an ability it will always have as a monetary sovereign. The question boils down to the availability of real resources for retirees, that could be the only problem going forward, although it shouldn't be if we keep our productive capacity intact.

There are no accounts, the budget was unified but the taxes were not. This created the greatest transfer of wealth in history to those making over $2 million a year from the working class.

Taxes don't fund federal expenditures, the monetary circuit doesn't operate like a recycling plant.

 

[KissMy]

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which was an increase in the payroll tax.

Imagine how much wealth those workers would have if all those SS taxes had been invested in the market since 1983.

Of course that would reduce the power of government, so I understand why you oppose it.

I don't oppose having our own payroll investment or investing all that wealth stolen by payroll taxes. But Reagan/Bush did not invest it, they stole it & more & gave it away to the Rich. They did not buy stocks or bonds, they subsidized the Rich with it.

But Reagan/Bush did not invest it

Neither did Obama. Or Clinton.

That reminds me, did you ever find the proof that Clinton and his Dem Congress cut spending?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending as did Obama

Those spending cuts created a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes hiked by Reagan/Bush.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't oppose having our own payroll investment or investing all that wealth stolen by payroll taxes. But Reagan/Bush did not invest it, they stole it & more & gave it away to the Rich. They did not buy stocks or bonds, they subsidized the Rich with it.

But Reagan/Bush did not invest it

Neither did Obama. Or Clinton.

That reminds me, did you ever find the proof that Clinton and his Dem Congress cut spending?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending as did Obama

Those spending cuts created a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes hiked by Reagan/Bush.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

Neither of those charts shows spending, why would you post them to show a spending cut?

 

[william the wie]

In your case, yes. There is certainly no hope. For the of us, there is the reality that one can succeed, coming from a poor background. There is no linear line between poor now, poor always, or rich now, rich always. Capital fluctuates in that regard. I would know, I came from a pretty poor background and have done just fine for myself. I've also seen "rich" friends lose their ass on investments. In the same way Pricketty makes dubious conclusions from skewed suppositions.

If you look at the biographies of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs it quickly becomes obvious that genetic inheritance matters a great deal more than monetary inheritance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If I earn < a living wage I cannot invest.

If I earn > a living wage and save @ < 1% I maybe become rich in a thousand years.

If I inherit a large amount of capital, it is easy to 'earn' a larger amount of capital.

If I am a member of the 1% by birth, and do not use drugs, the old boy's network will ensure me a life of great wealth and an easy path to greater wealth. Hence the effort for a 'death tax' repeal.

If I am born poor and live in poverty it is unlikely I will earn a living wage, If I do and secure a union job the very wealthy will want my labor at a lesser rate and outlaw collective bargaining.

If I'm born poor and have poor health I'm out of luck.

The American Dream is dead; we live today in an Oligarchy of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Welcome to the United States of America. Where the
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Where this fantasy of the American Dream's death began with the election of Ronald Reagan and fulminated under the ultra conservative hand of the callous conservatives in the 21st Century.

LOL Freddo. LOL You're a treasure here. You're totally incapable of ever learning and do nothing but spew Progressive talking points. Down with the Kulaks!

Vote Democrat, when you're not not collecting unemployment they'll fight to the death to get you a minimum wage job.

Wry is a perfect example of why Progressive economies come with a 100% Fail Rate

 

[Dot Com]

^ ironic post is ironic. You drink the rw kool aid by the gallon

 

[bripat9643]

I said FICA was a regressive tax. So we eliminate it, fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month. Problem solved, go find another outrage.

I said FICA was a regressive tax.

I said SS makes it harder for us to accumulate wealth.
Glad you agree.

fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month

No thanks.

God forbid we give seniors or the disabled more purchasing power. Oh, the horror, they'll be blood in the streets.

The horror comes when your children have to pay for this Ponzi scheme. You obviously don't care if they work like galley slaves for the rest of their lives so you can play golf in Florida.

 

[Kimura]

I said FICA was a regressive tax.

I said SS makes it harder for us to accumulate wealth.
Glad you agree.

fund SS out of the general revenue, and raise minimum payments to $2,000 per month

No thanks.

God forbid we give seniors or the disabled more purchasing power. Oh, the horror, they'll be blood in the streets.

The horror comes when your children have to pay for this Ponzi scheme. You obviously don't care if they work like galley slaves for the rest of their lives so you can play golf in Florida.

For a self-proclaimed economic guru, you really don't understand basic concepts. SS isn't ponzi scheme, it doesn't fit the definition.

Secondly, in real terms, contrary to great polemics over at mises.org, your repeated statements about Americans share of debt has zero basis in reality, as no such burden can exist for our children or grandchildren. Our children and grandchildren, just like you and I and, will be able to go to work to produce and consume their real output of goods and services, which has ZERO relationship to how many bonds the federal government rolls over. In economics, this concept simply doesn't exist, where we have to sacrifice our present output for some date in the past and then roll it over to previous generations.