TaxCheat Geitner -- Hand in the Till

[flacaltenn]

Pete:

Don't sweat it. You are correct in every way except as the govt would explain a surplus. So for us normal math capable folks, you are OK with those numbers.

In terms of the Budget Books, there was a surplus. THEN -- after they stole the 300Bill from payroll tax and showed it as REVENUE --- the treasury made "a purchase" of 300Bill in Bonds (different series from publically traded, practically worthless) as an intergoverment transfer to the "trust fund". So in terms of the public budget books, they ignored the transfer.

Many ardent leftists still argue that those trust fund bonds are actually earning INTEREST! And that the fund is solvent for another couple decades. Those people should have their GEDs revoked.. If you pretend that the trust fund is due interest when you calculate the solvency dates (which they actually do) -- the SIZE of the theft just increases..

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.

http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck

All part of the lies and theft and money-laundering that occured since LBJ.. And worse than that --- It's exactly what Geitner is doing today with Fed Employee Retirement monies..

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yeah, spending the SS money and cutting the military like there'd never be another threat really worked out for us.

No matter WHO pays, simply raising taxes will take 115 billion - 1.3 TRILLION a year - out of the economy. Over 10% of GNP! Over and above what they already take.

How big of a government do you want?

Pete

You are assuming that the wealthy spend their money here and not on the Riviera, or Paris, or London, or Berlin.

[piece-itpete]

No sweating, I see the debt increased, therefore, no surplus. 1+2=3, except government

The two parties are Janus. Talking out both sides of the mouth, get you coming and going, I bet one could go on like that a while lol. They work for themselves.

Rob, we need to figure out how to get them furrners to spend money here! Maybe Chicago pizza? Hmmm... Got it! Great Lakes beer!

Pete

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

JonL:



First - we need some evidence that "the rich" benefitted from the downturn in the economy. MOST of the "tax targeted rich" got PUMMELED in their private 401K and savings. Only the traders who positioned themselves out of Fanny/Freddy and the housing bubble increased their worth. But for these few, the last 5 years is probably close to a wash. We are ALL being economically deflated. Top to bottom.. Yes, there's a gap -- but it's becoming just about as meaningful as the gap between the Howells and everyone else on Gilligan's Island.

I know that the disparity in wealth in this country has increased dramatically over the past decade... for whatever reason. I also know that during that time the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans has decreased dramatically. Perhaps a good start to increasing revenues (while also responsibly reducing spending) would be to restore the tax structure to where it has historically been during periods of protracted economic growth fueled by a vibrant middle class. BTW, I'm not suggesting that the downturn benefitted the wealthy, but it certainly didn't cause the same degree of hardship that it caused the middle class and below. I am suggesting that our tax policy has benefited the wealthy to the detriment of the rest of us.

I surely don't get your Gilligan's Island analogy.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Second -- We're seeing the results of criminally poor financial management at the Congressional level. That Geitners recent action is just the latest example of negligient fiduciary responsibility. For THAT -- the guilty have to pay. Just like demanding accountability on Wall Street, we need accountability and some "perp walks" from the govt. Not going to let them continue these criminal acts. Especially, the continuing lie that the SS/MC crisis is still years off. Stop the lying now -- and we can talk about fixing it. You stop the criminal acts, before you swing into repair mode.

It would be nice to reduce the hyperbole in DC and start discussing issues in a rational manner that isn't totally influenced by lobbying and pandering.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Thirdly, we have excused about 1/2 of America from contributing to this crisis by reducing their INCOME taxes to zero (or refunding a negative tax thru EITC). That puts a crimp into the repair effort. Now progressive income is OK I guess to a point. If we hadn't stolen from this bottom half thru excess payroll taxes for most of their lives, I'd have NO compunctions about asking them to contribute a token amount to the fix. Were none of THESE people for the wars that helped shove us into an untenable financial muck-up? Were none of these people for the housing policies that inflated the housing bubble? Were none of these people for all the Green crappola that's been over-hyped at GE? Were none of these people in favor of including drug benefits to MCare?

The reason so many lower income people pay little or no income tax is because far too many people have subsistence level incomes or below. I don't know what you mean about "stealing" from people with payroll taxes. We all get services from the gov't, and they need to be paid for. The fact that people (of whatever means) may have been "for" or "against" various policies in a general sense has no bearing on if those people as individuals or as a member of a particular class should pay or not pay for the policies. We are all in this together. If our elected (?) leaders take us into war, it is incumbent upon them to demand that we pay for it. If we do not want to pay for it, we need to get our leaders to change their policies. Our leaders lacked the courage, foresight, or principle to demand that we make sacrifices to achieve our objectives.

Furthermore, it's disingenuous to "blame" normal people for supporting various policies that were so convoluted and arcane in their implementation as to be totally unintelligible. Do think anyone who benefitted from housing policies was given an explanation about CDOs, mortgage backed securities, economic bubbles, bank failures, foreclosures, etc, while they were being told that homeownership was the American dream and that real estate was a "sure thing?" As to the drug benefits, there was TREMENDOUS opposition to the way it was implemented because it was confusing to the supposed beneficiaries and a windfall for the actual beneficiaries - the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. I also believe that a majority of Americans would favor a sound "green" energy development policy if it was funded by eliminating oil company tax breaks, and I bet most would even support it if it included a modest gas tax of a couple of pennies per gallon.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Fourthly, the better method than targeting specific incomes with higher tax brackets, is to start closing the existing "tax expenditures" (as the left likes to call them) or loopholes. Do it as uniformly and universally as possible. Don't promote the class warfare rhetoric which truly isn't gonna fix the problem.. (See california e.g. where about 30,000 people in that state pay 60% of state income tax. So when THOSE people take a hit in a declining market -- the whole state goes into the red).

No argument that loopholes should be closed. However, this mantra of "class warfare" is a stupid red herring. Only the most radical of leftists are saying anything that approaches class warfare rhetoric. It's a nice way for those who are benefitting from the increasing income disparity to deflect criticism of the unfair policies that help them. It's as if a bully keeps poking his finger in your eye and when you punch back he gets you arrested for assault.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

But I'm not in a mood to see the Treasury stealing from yet ANOTHER pile of OPiuM (other peoples money). Or punishing the lower class with a dollar devaluation and NOT calling that a tax.

How much taxation is legitimate before you call it "stealing?"

[flacaltenn]

Oh My JonL:

Important stuff first ---

How much taxation is legitimate before you call it "stealing?"

When I referred to Geitners hand being in the Fed Employee Fund, that's not taxation, but it is STEALING. Just plain ole fiduciary mismanagement. White collar crime. I'm not (bigL) libertarian enough to call ANY taxation theft or stealing.

Only the most radical of leftists are saying anything that approaches class warfare rhetoric.

Not really.. Hard to find ANYONE in Dem leadership that hasn't used the phrases "millionaires and billionaires" in referencing their target for redistribution. In fact, referring to their only viable party of opposition as the "party of millionaires and billionaires" is part of the revolution. I just laugh when I think of Fox New's audience as composed of "millionaires and billionaires". And Obama was outed as a Progressive several times during his campaign and folks tried to warn that there would be ample support for the radical Progressive agenda.

I surely don't get your Gilligan's Island analogy.

More important stuff there. Maybe it's an age thing. You had the filthy rich Howells on that island trying to maintain their status and pretend that they were still elite and superior in social graces. When in reality, they were eating crap off the beach and living in a hut. Those RICH that the class warfare revolution want to tax are one Federal Reserve policy change away from living in hut like the rest of us. So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all.

So the point is -- it's ludicrous fiscal policy to bet the farm on the income of the top 5 or 10%. Unless of course, you want to discover (like California) that all your social programs and govt pretend altruism gets dumped every time the market tanks. It's like financing your health care system off tobacco tax revenues. Not a very wise or stable thing to do.

[flacaltenn]

Whoops --'nother important clarification...

I don't know what you mean about "stealing" from people with payroll taxes. We all get services from the gov't, and they need to be paid for.

For over 30 years, Congress allowed EVERY working American to be payroll taxed (SS/MC) at rates that FAR EXCEEDED what was required to run those programs. That's the groundwork for the theft. The actual implementation of the theft was when they took those revenues INTENDED TO PAY INSURANCE PREMIUMS and spent them on any crap they liked at the time. AND -- they did that knowing that both SS/MC were structured as "pay as you go" programs with no means of "lock-boxing" those HUMONGEOUS overcharges. (Amounts to at least 6 TRILLION bucks so far).

JonL: That's clearly theft that hurt the "working class" more than others. Can't be construed any other way. Why we ever trust the Fed Govt to run "Universal" anything again is beyond me...

[JonL]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Oh My JonL:

Important stuff first ---

When I referred to Geitners hand being in the Fed Employee Fund, that's not taxation, but it is STEALING. Just plain ole fiduciary mismanagement. White collar crime. I'm not (bigL) libertarian enough to call ANY taxation theft or stealing.

Seemed to me that any time you were speaking about taxation you called it stealing, including taxation that occurred before Geitner. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Not really.. Hard to find ANYONE in Dem leadership that hasn't used the phrases "millionaires and billionaires" in referencing their target for redistribution. In fact, referring to their only viable party of opposition as the "party of millionaires and billionaires" is part of the revolution. I just laugh when I think of Fox New's audience as composed of "millionaires and billionaires". And Obama was outed as a Progressive several times during his campaign and folks tried to warn that there would be ample support for the radical Progressive agenda.

Your examples hardly qualify as "class warfare rhetoric" to me. Nor does Obama's being "outed" (Outed??? WTF???) as a Progressive seem to me to be class warfare rhetoric. I think you have a very thin skin, or pretend as much to be able to take cheap shots based on labels rather than on substance.

Maybe I should've raised the "class warfare!" cry of outrage when Reagan talked about welfare queens. Maybe I should do it now every time someone invokes the meaningless statistics about which HALF of the population pays more taxes without also talking about how the income is also apportioned.

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

More important stuff there. Maybe it's an age thing. You had the filthy rich Howells on that island trying to maintain their status and pretend that they were still elite and superior in social graces. When in reality, they were eating crap off the beach and living in a hut. Those RICH that the class warfare revolution want to tax are one Federal Reserve policy change away from living in hut like the rest of us. So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all.

So the point is -- it's ludicrous fiscal policy to bet the farm on the income of the top 5 or 10%. Unless of course, you want to discover (like California) that all your social programs and govt pretend altruism gets dumped every time the market tanks. It's like financing your health care system off tobacco tax revenues. Not a very wise or stable thing to do.

I'm plenty old enough to remember Gilligan's Island, Thurston Howell III and "Lovey." Your analogy is way into the realm of hyperbole. What's the wealth distribution like in this country DESPITE the disastrous economic conditions that have existed for the last few years? And no one is advocating that a restoration of historically sustainable progressive tax rates is the ENTIRE solution, but it should certainly be a part of it. Just because a downturn might affect tax revenues doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue a reasonable tax strategy anyway. Hell, my house might burn down one day. Should I live outdoors instead of facing that possible disaster? Finally, you cannot compare a state's budgetary situation to that of the Federal government. The Feds are allowed to run a deficit, the states are not. There is nothing wrong with the ability to run a deficit at the federal level, the problem is being irresponsible about it, the way Bush was by cutting taxes and engaging in reckless spending at the same time during a period of economic growth when somewhat higher taxes could have been tolerable. I believe it is sound fiscal policy to run a deficit during an economic downturn and run a surplus during economic prosperity.

Oh, this is interesting... you wrote

"So much invested in shaky or risky investments. They are in a position to lose MORE in a downturn than then the lower 50% who don't contribute at all. "

So I should subsidize their gambling addiction? They may be in a position to lose much more in dollars than the lower 50% but not in lifestyle or security.

[BlueStreak]

Zzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzzzz, Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....................God, you guys are boring.

I think we should just let wealthy individuals and corporations off scot free. That's right, give them whatever they want, no taxes, hack wages and salaries in half or two thirds, repeal all labor and environmental laws, tell everyone no more paid vacations, personal days, employer sponsored health or dental benefits, no government oversight of anything at all........just let them completely run amok. So long as the rest of us are equally free to do whatever we please with impunity as well. So the libertarians can finally see what they've been asking for.

I, for one, wouldn't mind busting a few scab heads. Sounds like fun.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by JonL

Maybe I should've raised the "class warfare!" cry of outrage when Reagan talked about welfare queens. Maybe I should do it now every time someone invokes the meaningless statistics about which HALF of the population pays more taxes without also talking about how the income is also apportioned.

You forgot to mention the distribution of wealth. It is even more out of whack than the distribution of income. This is important, of course, control of capital is directly proportional to control of opportunity. Over the last ten years, the top one percent have absorbed an amazing proportion of the entire country's increase in wealth.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Harold Myerson came up with a good idea in this mornings WaPo. We can cut the deficit simply by cutting of the welfare we pay to certains states that take more out of the pot than they put in. Sista Sarah's Alaska being a prime example.