Starting over

Done.

Done

go

ding

go

done

dng

start

ding

Difficulty score 19.

Tuco: if we lowered taxes on businesses they would come home. The high wages American workers earn is because the American worker is the most productive worker in the world.

Phil: if you think Hillary is sensitive, just wave a dollar bill in her face. She has collected $22 million in fees from big business, banks and lobbyists since resigning as Secretary of State.

Imagine that, $22 million for Hillary's screeches...er speeches.

Every public figure gets paid to speak. In fact, it's quite a business. Trump gets paid very well to speak (even if doesn't speak very well). If Trump released his taxes I am sure you'd seem something quite similar. Gosh, I wonder why he hasn't? What could he possibly be hiding?

Lowered taxes on businesses they would come home. B.S. They are chasing the low wages. Most of them that have left for low wage workers didn't pay any taxes anyway due to loop holes they lobbied for.

And why shouldn't they pay taxes? They use our infrastructure to move their goods. They sell to us consumers. Why should we have to shoulder the burden for their extra profit? I have to pay sales tax on every clock I fix. I pay income tax, school tax, property tax. Why shouldn't they pay too? The tax rates are already historically low for most corporations and many large ones pay little or no tax.

You want to do business here in the U.S.?? Pay your workers a living wage and contribute to the maintenance of the infrastructure.

Mr. Trump is a huge beneficiary of the Real Estate tax loop holes that industry enjoys.

sorry yewj.

That is the reason he is not releasing his tax returns.

drwho yes the American worker is highly productive but Trickle Down economics has resulted in their productivity not being rewarded fairly. Even though productivity has remained high wages have remained flat. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leader\nship/wp/2015/03/13/the-income-gap-between-bos\nses-and-workers-is-getting-even-bigger-worldw\nide/

Benefiting the few (CEO's, Trust Fund Babies, Hedge Fund Managers, etc.) at the expense of the few (the rest of us.) supposedly is not the American Way. Trickle Down is Anti-American. VooDoo Economics. And Trump is running on a Trickle Down Economic Policy. You supply siders have balls the size of watermelons. It doesn't work. It heats up the economy in the short term and then the bills come due and the middle class is stuck with paying it off. It happens every time and too many people still buy it. Why? Because they believe someday they will win the lottery.

The supply siders also get people to buy into their snake oil by pitting the middle class against the poor. Welfare mothers driving Cadillacs. The Social Safety net is for takers. The "Death Tax" The fear-mongering and class-baiting goes on and on.

Really, how many people that were cheering when Trump said he was going to get rid of the "Death Tax" knew that the ESTATE TAX only applies to estates in excess of $11 million ?????

meanwhile if you are middle class and manage to save up maybe $1 million by the time you retire and you need long term care? Good bye $1 mil. Thank you anti national health care people.

and where does that $1 mil go to? Some goes to wages of the people taking care of mom, dad, you. But a good chunk goes to the CEO of the health care conglomerate who owns the facility. I believe they get quite a sweetheart deal on their taxes too.

so maybe if the ESTATE TAX was not done away with but maybe increased by 1 or 2% on Estates over $11 mil we could use that money to offset long term care and maybe keep some generational wealth for the middle class to pass on. That seems to be a better way of Trickling Down to me.

besides all that the FOUNDING FATHERS wanted the ESTATE TAX to prevent generational wealth from creating a new aristocracy here in the U.S. that had arisen in Europe. So all you Originalists should be horrified when you hear a candidate say he wants to get rid of the "Death Tax"

And raise the cap on Social Security payroll deduction. Right now if you make more than $118,500 a year you pay nothing to SS on income over that amount. What that really means is if you make $118,499 a year you and your employer will pay in a total of about $14,220 a year to SS. If you make $500,000 a year you and your employer will pay in a total of the same 14.220 a year thereby lowering your SS tax rate to 2% of total income.

I'll never understand why people complain that 'trickle down economics don't work', but they refuse to start their own businesses to take advantage of the great benefit businesses allegedly have.

That's not true. I know exactly why. It's because they don't want to incur risk or the hard work that it takes to make a business successful. But it's so terrible that the guy that did that got rewarded for doing so. So don't reward the risk taker. People will take less risks. People will have less jobs to fill. People will have less money to spend. Sounds great. Why not move somewhere else, since this is virtually the only place in the world that has such a 'terrible' economic ideology? Probably because the people complaining about trickle down not working are benefiting greatly from it. "Probably."

Uh sorry 1Hammer I am now a partner in a small business. I know what I am talking about. I work 12-14 hours a day. Trickle Down only works for the Big Guys. That is what it means. Benefit the TOP and the economic benefits will Trickle Down. The optimum word is Trickle. trickle - a small flow of liquid.

It is what as known as a Regressive tax policy instead of the Progressive tax policy that has always made this country stronger economically.

Starving the Federal government because you believe that Government is bad and regulation is evil just falls into the hands of those who want to tip the playing field to benefit themselves. Read again my post about SS withholding. Scale that up. Someone who makes $1,000,000,000 a year effectively pays 0% in SS taxes.

Yet if that Hedge Fund manager making $1,000,000,000 a year had to pay on 100% of his earnings like everyone else who makes less than $118,500 a year his SS bill would be $120,000,000

I think he would still be able to afford a Ferrari or two on $800,000,000 a year and if he was taxed on 100% of his income at 40% he could still afford it on 400,000,000 bucks.

And the funny thing is that hedge fund manager is making that money off of other peoples money. Matthew 21:12 anyone?

You clearly can't grasp the complexity of trickle down economics. I get that.

"Starving the Federal government" Oh yeah, it's totally starved. Never mind that the people of this country pay more taxes than any other country. You guys think taking money from corporations is a good idea, then you do it and they cut jobs. Never think through the ramifications of your 'ideas'.

Yeah, SS needs a rework. Republicans have been trying to fix that for ages. Should complain to Dems about that.

Matthew 21:12 is a great example of Christ telling the church what to do. Not sure why it would apply to a hedge fund manager. I assume you don't actually spend much time studying the Bible, though you could just be intentionally taking things out of context for narrative, but I'd like to assume you're not that nefarious.

1: There is no complexity to trickle down economics. It is cut taxes to the top and give tax breaks to business hoping that will create jobs and benefit all. Unfortunately that is supply side economics which doesnt work. You can artificially heat up the economy by raising spending on the military as Reagan did and the two Bushes have. But sooner or later the bill comes due. As it did during Bush I and Bush 2. Keep believing 1Hammer. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If you think there is no complexity to trickle down economics, you're proving my statement to be true.

Okay enlighten me, then. Show me the complexity.

Make me a believer. It would help me out a lot.

This is hardly the forum to teach an economics class. Go read some Milton Friedman.

But if you think the only complexity is pay tricking down within the specific company, you're horribly uninformed. Seriously, go read a book on economics. Or take a general elective college course. You're clueless on economics at this point.

I have read Friedman. I would rather follow Krugman.

Economic theories are great until the prove unworkable. Occums Razor Keep it simple stupid. Complexity is not always a good thing.

I have taken economics during while getting my Computer Science degree.

I'd bet you've read neither, unless you count a huffpo article telling you what to think. There's no way you're that clueless on economics and have read anything. No way.

Then again, 'someone on the internet lied' is a meme for a reason.

you are an idiot. I will mail you a copy of my diploma from Binghamton University

So where is your degree in Economics from? Breitbart U?

lol

???

a piece of paper hardly proves anything. I certainly do not have a degree in economics. Mine is in computer science, as well. But I wasn't stoned and hungover during my courses. Apparently you were.

nice. Attack attack. Actually I was working full time and raising two babies along with my wife while getting my degree.

lol, you call me an idiot then say I'm attacking? Douchebag. Learn a thing or two about economics then talk.

Wow, impressive. I got married while working full time, going to school full time and had a child my 2nd year. So what's your point? That you didn't learn anything about economics and had a family?

The problem with you saying learn a thing or two about economics, accusing me of being drunk and stoned and unable to understand complexity and then is that you completely discount history.

No, I just don't believe in making it up.

What part of history says capitalism fails? Certainly none in this country. Perhaps you should move to Venezuela to get a taste of your delicious "Democratic Socialism".

who has made up what? Where is your proof other than "If you think there is no complexity to trickle down economics, you're proving my statement to be true' I

That statement means nothing. What have I made up?

How do I completely discount history?

Because of what I have posted below about SS and the estate tax

Show me the quote where I discounted it...

And these are symptoms of trickle down economics.

lol, SS sucking is the opposite of a symptom of trickle down economics. It's a progressive policy sucking, as they usually do.

My point is that starving the government by cutting taxes is what trickle down economics does at it's core. It is sold to you as a revenue generator by cutting taxes at the top you will generate more revenue but it has never worked.

that is discounting history believing that it will work if we keep trying it.

We already know through history in the 30's - 60's that a higher marginal tax rate will balance the budget and lead to more widespread economic growth.

I apologize for calling you an idiot. I was wrong to do that. I let you piss me off. That was wrong of me.

Odd that the federal revenue as a % of GDP doesn't drop when tax rates do. Not sure how you could even begin to claim that's 'starving the government'

Funny you should mention that. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/sou\nrce-revenue-share-gdp

"starving the government" cutting funding for regulatory agencies. Guns and butter Econ 101. More money to military than to infrastructure and education. Didn't you use the hokey program in Econ 101 to make guns and butter models?

either way we will never agree. I get that. enjoy the rest of your day.

I'm probably not as far from you as you think on the government spending on military. I'm with Ted Cruz on this (as I am with a lot of things as a proper libertarian), if a situation isn't a direct threat to the US, we probably shouldn't be involved (unless NATO directs us there).

As far as spending on education and infrastructure, I don't entirely agree. I've seen schools spend their money very poorly. I'm a firm believer that the only 'solution' to our underperforming schools is competition. Which of course means vouchers. If a private school teaches kids better, why not redirect kids/money to that school?

I'm personally bothered by school spending as the local school here threatened to cut programs if they didn't get a levy passed, then when it passed, they gave very nice raises to several $100k+ salaried bureaucrats.

As a whole, I don't think the government is starved, though. They're getting plenty of revenue. They're just spending it poorly (and the military is included here).

It had a loner of four off a virtual. I would have called that a Medium. (Unless I missed something easier.) And a unique rectangle. 20.

go

bbl

tuco: Your comments on Social Security taxes are misleading. It is true that very high earners pay a much lower percentage of their total earned income in FICA and SECA taxes than low-income workers do. But you forgot to mention that Social Security retirement benefits replace a much higher percentage of low-income workers' pre-retirement income than they do for higher-income workers. You need to consider both issues before deciding whether the current Social Security system is regressive, progressive or balanced.

back

done

hi all

TallMike yes that is true that SS replaces a much higher percentage of low-income workers pre retirement income. Because their income is low. I don't understand your point. I am being serious. There is a social security calculator at socialsecurity.gov but I don't understand your point. Someone who makes $20k a year this year and retires this year at 66 will get ~$838 a month. or $9,700 a year. If you made $1,000,000 a year this year and retires this year at 66 your monthly benefit will be ~ $2,727.00/month or $32724/year. The quick calc at ss.gov would not let me put in $10,000,000

Now this is probably pretty fair since someone making $20K probably doesn't have a good retirement deal that someone who makes > $118,500/year does.

Okay, okay, I know. It is not the person making > $118,500 years fault the people making < $60 - 130K or have a great retirement account. I get it. I think I am starting to see the light.

or don't have

What you can put into SS is effectively capped, and so is what you can receive from it.

There are good reasons for the federal government to promote the widely held perception that Social Security is a fair system and that what you pay into it will eventually be there for you if and when you need it.

SS has to look different from the income tax system, which is where progressive taxation has gained some degree of acceptance even though it is arguable unfair.

arguably

Welcome, blueskies29. Hello and join the fun!

If we must have a social security program (show me where the Constitution grants that power to the federal government) I would like to have a plan like they have in Singapore. You are required by law to put a certain percentage of your earnings in a government approved account that you own.

Here we just give it all to the politicians who spend it, and then wonder where we will get the money to pay out the benefits that were promised.

Tuco: The quick calculator at socialsecurity.gov will show you other interesting things too. Go back to your example of someone who made $1,000,000 a year this year and retires this year at 66 with a monthly benefit of ~ $2,727.00/month. Change the one million dollars number to $250,000 and recalculate the monthly benefit, and you will see it is unchanged. You are seeing the effect of the provisions which cap the benefit amount. The monthly benefit would also be unchanged if this year's earned income were ten million dollars although, as you noted, the calculator does not go that high.

Sorry, tuco, I did not mean to capitalize your name.

So if we do away with the cap on ss withholding we could keep it solvent lower the retirement age for full benefits back to 65, keep cost of living adjustments and the trust fund out of the hands of Wall Street?

No problem capitalizing Tuco.

I think it is unfair to call SS or progressive tax system unfair. I know many people believe that people who receive benefits/welfare are somehow undeserving and they should just work harder but unfortunately our economic system can be very unfair. When I was just out of high school in 1973 there were manufacturing jobs. They are all gone. Without a government safety net imagine what this country would look like. It is fair for those who have benefited from the economy to pay into something to assist those who have been hurt by it. Or for whatever reason we as a people deem is just and provides for the General Welfare.

Having said that. I have worked almost all my life. I received SS Disability for 6 years and worked the last 2 years while receiving partial benefits. It wasn't enough money to "live" on. It was enough to help rebuild my life after a spinal injury. Since I did not have health insurance when I had my accident Medicaid paid for my surgery. I had to reimburse them 100% from a settlement. Without these programs I would probably not be alive today. You can take that as an argument against social programs :-) Who should pay for that? Those who can most afford it. Those who benefit from our country and its economy.

If we were to do away with the caps on income subject to SS taxes, we would have a difficult time arguing that SS is a safety net rather than social engineering unless we also did away with the cap on benefits, and that would bankrupt the system very quickly.

Much better to keep SS as a safety net program and use the income tax system to accomplish the social engineering. If you can get it through Congress (good luck with that).

Fairness is highly subjective. I only remarked that progressive taxation is arguably unfair. The same could be argued about the proposed flat tax. Ultimately it's a matter of persuading others to your point of view, a skill at which you have some talent methinks.

tuco, i feel for you. Having grown up in England with a National Health Service paid for by mainly around 10% of everyones earnings which meant free health for everyone. Admittedly you still took out private health cover if you wanted to choose a private room in hospital or speed up non essential surgery, I find your system so unsympathetic. Even in Aus where we have a health system that is more user pays,and topped up by private cover you can still end up with a big gap payment if you don't go through the public system. But that said the public system may cause you to wait but you do get excellent treatment for free. We recently in WA now pay an extra $99 on our car registrations so that everyone has catastrophic injury insurance so they would get care for the rest of their life even if they were not insured for it. I find it baffling that so many in the US think so selfishly that if you can't afford health cover then tough luck.