Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-14-2012, 07:44 AM   #1
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
turn left turn right... err no

–Which Presidential candidate offers the better plan for closing the income gap?

QuoteQuote:
In the unlikely event either party and either candidate ever wishes to help the 99%, rather than merely consolidating personal power, here is what they will do:

1. Eliminate the FICA tax. It impacts the middle and lower classes, not only directly, but also by making employment more expensive for potential employers. For the lower classes, FICA often is greater than income taxes.

2. Medicare for everyone. Medical expenses are far more traumatic for the 99% than for the 1%, who easily can afford health insurance or even self-insurance. This act also will benefit the states by making Medicaid unnecessary.

3. Increase Social Security benefits to the point where all retired people – not just the 1% — can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. This has the byproduct of encouraging more people to retire, opening jobs for younger people.

4. Each year, increase the standard deduction on the income tax, so that annually, fewer of the 99% will owe any tax.

5. Send a population-based stimulus payment to each state, so that the monetarily non-sovereign states can afford to improve their infrastructures, education and police and fire protections.

As for Romney and Obama, don’t let them deceive you. Both their plans will widen the gap.


04-14-2012, 07:52 AM   #2
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteQuote:
1. Eliminate the FICA tax. It impacts the middle and lower classes, not only directly, but also by making employment more expensive for potential employers. For the lower classes, FICA often is greater than income taxes.

3. Increase Social Security benefits to the point where all retired people – not just the 1% — can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. This has the byproduct of encouraging more people to retire, opening jobs for younger people.
So, where does the money for #3 come from if #1 is implemented?
Social Security is the world's biggest ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes rely on new blood to work. The government doesn't have any money. Never did, and never will. Every dollar it give to someone came from someone. If you don't tax the people who are working, then where does the money to pay those who are retired come from?

Last edited by Parallax; 04-14-2012 at 08:00 AM.
04-14-2012, 09:31 AM   #3
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
So, where does the money for #3 come from if #1 is implemented?
Social Security is the world's biggest ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes rely on new blood to work. The government doesn't have any money. Never did, and never will. Every dollar it give to someone came from someone. If you don't tax the people who are working, then where does the money to pay those who are retired come from?
Err your not getting it.. money doesn't have to "come from" anywhere..............

Is the checkbook mentality (WHICH is not the way the Fed fiat money ground rules are "like" in any shape and form) .... etched in stone tablets????
04-14-2012, 10:30 PM   #4
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8114


QuoteQuote:
If there's—one thing most economists agree with is there's not enough demand in the economy. People just don't have enough money to buy stuff. And that mostly has to do with stagnant wages, and then unemployment, although the two things are awfully connected with each other. Well, is there one thing that could be done to deal with this quickly?

Now joining us with a proposal is Professor James K. Galbraith. He teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He's also the author of many books, including The Predator State and Inequality and Instability. Thanks for joining us, James.

JAMES K. GALBRAITH, PROF. ECONOMICS, UNIV. OF TEXAS: My pleasure.

JAY: So what would be one thing that could be done in terms of public policy that would start dealing with this issue of wages?

GALBRAITH: Well, as you know, for many years now a great many of us have been saying that the government should be in the business of creating more jobs directly or indirectly with an expansionary program. And we have been blocked on that avenue, basically. At the moment, the debate has been dominated by debt and deficit worriers, one might even say hysterics. What I propose, therefore, is a measure that would not involve increasing federal budget expenditures and would in fact modestly reduce the deficit. And that proposal is to raise the minimum wage and to raise it very substantially.

JAY: How much would you raise it?

GALBRAITH: Oh, I would say $12 an hour from the present, you know, and change. So a very substantial amount, enough to make a material difference in the lives of a large part, of a substantial part of the working population, and therefore to change their household balance sheets to give them a substantial increase in purchasing power. That's the idea behind this suggestion.


04-15-2012, 05:36 AM   #5
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
Why $12.00? That's still not a lot. Why not raise it to 20? That's enough to live on in most any part of the country, and live well in some parts.
It's a perfect solution. The day the President signs the bill he would be completely eliminating poverty with a single stroke of a pen. I can't believe nobody has thought of that!
04-15-2012, 05:38 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Why $12.00? That's still not a lot. Why not raise it to 20? That's enough to live on in most any part of the country, and live well in some parts.
It's a perfect solution. The day the President signs the bill he would be completely eliminating poverty with a single stroke of a pen. I can't believe nobody has thought of that!
He said $12 from the present...so $19.25. He also said "and change" so maybe $19.50 or $19.75.
04-15-2012, 06:15 AM   #7
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
Okay, I missed that. So why stop there? Why not 40, or 100. Why not just require, by law, that everybody be paid an annual salary of a million dollars? There couldn't possibly be any poverty if everybody in the country was a millionaire. I can't believe these so-called economists aren't smart enough to see that. Geez!

04-15-2012, 06:24 AM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 426
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Social Security is the world's biggest ponzi scheme.
Only a ponzi scheme if the US population continues to decrease (i.e. smaller base to pay for more retired people).

With that said, I have often wondered if allowing people to place social security money into private accounts could be used to increase the amount each person gets without placing a burden on the next generation. Perhaps have a government guaranteed fund (low risk, low payoff), as well as some other certified (so not too risky) stock and bond accounts. The government could then offer a plan that would take the amount of money the person had at retirement and provide guaranteed yearly payments. My hypothesis is that this would provide most people with more money than they get through the social security system. The question is whether the government can mandate people to place their money into private accounts??? We shall see how the healthcare ruling goes.

Here is a paper from before the recession: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/03/part1/GarrettRhine.pdf
Of course, you need to take into account the possibility of an economic recession somewhere close to retirement (which I do not believe they did in this paper).
04-15-2012, 06:44 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 426
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Okay, I missed that. So why stop there? Why not 40, or 100. Why not just require, by law, that everybody be paid an annual salary of a million dollars? There couldn't possibly be any poverty if everybody in the country was a millionaire. I can't believe these so-called economists aren't smart enough to see that. Geez!
I agree with this point, but I do think that there is a lot of benefit that could be reaped from encouraging companies to pay a living wage to all workers. In my mind this starts at ~$12-$13 per hour (i.e. the amount a frugal person who is not living in a high cost of living area can live on, and still have a bit of extra money for fun/savings). In my mind, employers that pay less should have to pay a higher tax for the welfare they are forcing their employees to use (however, I am unsure of the pros and cons of a tax like that).
04-15-2012, 07:45 AM   #10
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
I would agree but for the fact that employers aren't going to absorb that cost. The employees are consumers as well. Employers, particularly small businesses will find a way to get by with fewer employee hours. Between that and the resultant price increases nobody is going to be much better off if the wage increases are drastic.
I don't have any employees. I am able to handle it myself, but if I had an eight dollar an hour employee and the government said that tomorrow I had to start paying him 12, I would probably cut the hours back. Perhaps not enough to offset the full amount, I would likely make up the rest with price increases; but the net paycheck increase wouldn't be anywhere near the 50% that the hourly increase would suggest. In a multiple employee situation, it would likely result in somebody losing their job completely. Apply all that globally and you would end up with Bush era unemployment and Carter era inflation.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
04-15-2012, 08:17 AM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 426
I agree that some companies would cut back (the ones that could keep their services up with lower wages). There would also be an increase in inflation, because many peoples wages would be increased. However, we have seen huge increases in the minimum wage before (from ~5/hour when I was in high school to ~$8 a couple years later). During this time inflation did not seem to kill us. My suspension is that the benefits would outweigh the adverse effects; however, I do not have the expertise to say this definitively (i.e. I defer to those who know what they are talking about ).

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
If only there were free lunch...the world would be a much simpler and tastier place
04-15-2012, 08:34 AM   #12
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by kswier Quote
I do not have the expertise to say this definitively (i.e. I defer to those who know what they are talking about
I try and do that as well, but I've never let a little thing like lack of understanding prevent me from discussing something. I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.
04-15-2012, 07:40 PM   #13
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I try and do that as well, but I've never let a little thing like lack of understanding prevent me from discussing something. I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.
OK lets try a different tactic.. Th Fed is a scorekeeper (yes borrowed analogy but hopefully I can improve on it) w/ an unlimited amount of points (fiat currency backed by nothing more than full faith and credit of the US of A).. It could just throw All the points out there at once but the game would be over or hopelessly confused...
SO instead it doles out it's points (digital cash) into the game.. giving some to one player and some to another .. and another .. in return for "stuff"
These players take their points and use it as leverage to get other stuff.. bargaining w/ other players who have fewer points or more "stuff" than is good for them (they had to give some of their points to other players for things to use in bulding their stuff
At the same time the Fed needs "stuff" too.. it gives points (it's bucket is endless) in exchange for this to keep it's military and infrastructure up.. Those people use their points to als get more stuff that people want.
EVERYONE is happy at this point BUT..the players are starting to collect too many points and it is getting a bit harder for the players to bargain.. so the Fed says.. give me some points back so as to keep your points circulating.. I don't need them all and I really don't need them for myself. (I AM the point creator) but you are acting too cocky w/ so many out there.. and to keep you honest I will get some back (tax).......again I certainly don't need them back for myself..

NOTHING has to balance in order to play the game.. only the actions that occur in regards to different levels of points put in the game..

you me and the states don't have the points (they are not made by us) so everything is different......

Oh and you will like this..........

QuoteQuote:
Yes, having a “weak” (exchange rate) currency allows for more exports. But so does imposing a tax on corporate profits, one of the looniest ideas among a world of loony economic ideas foisted on us by our Monetarily Sovereign government (You know; it’s the government that neither needs nor uses tax income, because it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency).

So rather than whining about China, wouldn’t we be better simply to eliminate corporate taxes? Nope, we can’t do that, because American’s believe corporations pay too little in taxes, not understanding that corporations merely pass 100% of their tax burden on to their customers and employees.

If you set out to make our corporations less competitive internationally, what is the very first thing you would do? Right. You would tax them.

Our government and the private sector leaders find it easier to find a whipping boy, China. If they took the trouble to learn MS, they would understand that this simple fact:

When China exports to America, it expends massive amounts of energy, manpower, time and scarce resources to create products, which it sends to us in exchange for dollars, which we create at no cost, by touching a computer key. Thus, China is our slave, working and sweating essentially for nothing.

Remember also that China too, is Monetarily Sovereign. The can create unlimited numbers of their sovereign currency. So why do they want to obtain our dollars in exchange for their valuable resources? First, they don’t need dollars, and second they can get all the dollars they might want simply by buying them on the open market, in exchange for yuan.

I have the same feeling you get when watching teenagers engaged in self-destructive acts. No matter how often you tell them why they should not do that, they just keep doing it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/how-our-leaders-and-our-teen...-chinas-fault/

Last edited by jeffkrol; 04-15-2012 at 09:19 PM.
04-16-2012, 05:07 AM   #14
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
I call bs on the dollars to China part. It isn't the government sending the money, it's the wage earner/consumer. If I buy a wigit made in China most of that money is gone due to the huge trade deficit. If I buy a wigit made in the U.S. that money is still here and may be used to buy a whatsit from somebody else. If that whatsit were U.S. made, that money will come back around yet again. Yeah, government can just print more money, but they don't just hand it out like candy at Halloween; not to the working people anyway. Restrict imports to the amount exported on a country by country basis an we'll have plenty of jobs.

Last edited by Parallax; 04-16-2012 at 05:14 AM.
04-16-2012, 06:27 AM   #15
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
. Yeah, government can just print more money, but they don't just hand it out like candy at Halloween; not to the working people anyway. Restrict imports to the amount exported on a country by country basis an we'll have plenty of jobs.
YES it's not how much they spend but what they spend it on.. Think of gov. buying money into the economy as an "investment"... in which their "return" is a better economy.
Now figure out which ones are the "best".. As I stated earlier the very best "fix" for the mortgage crisis would have been to do the social psychological (NOT financial) unacceptable payoff of
the loan giving the owner occupier instant ownership and liquidity (and the banks scrubbing the debt from their books w/ the "trickle up" ) to free up more spending..
QuoteQuote:
not to the working people anyway
Right back to the wage slavery so lovd by Capitalists.. NEVER give them anything that would improve their finances.. subsistence is fine and slightly hungry/desperate is better.. Seeing the picture yet???
Just like the Repubs who are more than happy to throw billions to capitalists but want everything short of wholesale starvation taken from the "little people"..

you play into their hands when you admit that the Fed can "print money" and almost spend without limit (please note we all know everything has limits) yet fall back on their meme and say we can't afford to give money to people that spend practically every last dollar (isn't that the best type of consumer anyways)..........

It is getting pretty obvious that short of allowing them to die en-mass they could give a rats patottie about the "little people"


We "little people" need to re-frame the fight and use "real world" economics.. not capitalism sponsored economics skewed to THEIR best interest.........

BTW: China is only equal to 15% of the goods and services "bought" in the US.....

Last edited by jeffkrol; 04-16-2012 at 06:33 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
candidate, classes, gap, income, increase, people, tax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Turn off all PP Markbrumbaugh Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 23 01-02-2012 04:09 AM
What do I need to turn off? robr7 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 09-15-2011 01:17 PM
Sr will not turn off Willowzxx Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 07-07-2011 07:14 AM
Nature U-Turn eaglem Post Your Photos! 2 04-04-2011 01:59 AM
To turn right or to turn left spura Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 04-15-2009 11:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top