| User Info
| 12/31: Last Chance in forum [Market-Ticker]
|
Clintb350
Posts: 1451
Incept: 2008-01-19
Southern AZ
|
Karl - In this case, doesn't ending the 2% Payroll Tax cut fall on the employee? I expect a 2 percentage point increase in Social Security Payroll withholding.
|
Zappafan
Posts: 1788
Incept: 2007-11-30
Atlanta
|
Happy New Year Karl.
Thanks for pointing out the damage done to SS by the mindless payroll tax cut.
Bribing the people by looting their future; a clever parlor trick by the pigmen.
----------
The alternative to not borrowing from a counterfeiting cartel is to be priced
out by those who do
|
Striker754
Posts: 671
Incept: 2009-07-09
|
Quote:If you have any interest in balancing the budget you want this tax "cut" to expire. If you have an interest in the national debt you want this tax "cut" to expire. Disagree. I would love a balanced budget and no debt, but why would I want this tax "cut" to expire? Govt steals enough already. Balancing the budget can be done from the spending side alone. What is our current spending? Almost $4T? That's ridiculous. All the talk of some trust fund depletion date is useless seeing how all the money is lumped together anyways and those laws can be changed, especially since we are talking 2025...over 10 years from now. Look at what they have done the past 4 years. BTW, the increase falls solely on employees. The employer side of the SS tax has always been 6.2%. |
Crzymorse
Posts: 1183
Incept: 2010-06-25
Maryland
|
The payroll tax cut may well expire as neither party is talking about it publicly and the media is too stupid to ask. I disagree with the solvency of the trust fund as it's just an accounting gimmick at this point. The 4-5T in the "trust fund" is a payable to the American people paid with money by the American people. A roundtripper or circle jerk.
|
Clintb350
Posts: 1451
Incept: 2008-01-19
Southern AZ
|
Striker - Agree on the last - employee SS withholding will go from 4.2% to 6.2%. Karl makes the point that a new hire might be paid 2% less when the cut was in place, I think. Long term employees get a 2% take home cut, which mostly wipes out the raise they may have gotten, not to mention the health care increases.
|
Genesis
Posts: 130663
Incept: 2007-06-26
|
Right.
----------
I don't care if it makes sense -- only if it makes money. -- Me
Bank (n): See scam, fraud and theft. Eat a bankster -- they're low-carb.
What part of "shall not be infringed" was unclear?
|
Lemonaid
Posts: 9877
Incept: 2008-01-20
Metro Detroit
|
All this money goes to an indiscriminate slush fund. There is no "lock box".
The problem can only be solved by dramatically slashing government. That includes getting rid of social security entirely.
----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
|
Clintb350
Posts: 1451
Incept: 2008-01-19
Southern AZ
|
Then the sentence below is still misleading. The only effect is for past/future salary considerations and on the employee's go-forward take home. The employers' portion doesn't change. It looks like you changed the first part some though. Quote:This particular tax change alone will add about $200 billion to Federal Revenues annually, and it falls "on employers" (supposedly.) I accept the increase, though, because I intend to collect before, during, and beyond 2019. |
Lemonaid
Posts: 9877
Incept: 2008-01-20
Metro Detroit
|
200 billion is approximately one month's debt borrowing. Inconsequential.
Karl, I think you need to direct your focus to the spending side of the ledger.
----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
|
Jb350
Posts: 359
Incept: 2011-06-10
Detroit metro
Banned
|
Given the uncertainty over capital gains tax rates, isnt it odd that there really has been no major selloff? Why would anyone sitting on 5, 6, or 7 figures of capital gains even take a chance on losing 20% of their profits when they could simply sell now then buy back in a month later?? (Or sooner if they buy a different security to avoid wash sales...) I can think of 3 reasons:
1. Anyone with gains to book has already sold.
2. The robots and the Fed have the market so rigged that they are able to bid it up against any and all selling pressure.
3. No one has any gains? (Except for the big banks which probably will avoid paying taxes anyway.)
|
R2judge
Posts: 571
Incept: 2008-04-13
Burbank CA
|
"Second, those who continue to have the insane view that "deficits don't matter"
It isn't a view, it's a game. Republican President= deficits don't matter, to the republicans. Democrat President= deficits matter, to the republicans.
Obama condemned Bush's deficits when Bush was President and loves them now, when he is President. It's a game.
The republicans opposed cutting the deficit by 450 billion in 2011, by expiring the tax cuts. Then they complained about the deficit being over a trillion dollars. It's a game.
Republicans opposed QE3, then complained about the sluggish economy due to a lack of more QE. It's all a game.
Obama talks of paying down the debt while running trillion dollar deficits. It's all a game.
|
Blurtman
Posts: 563
Incept: 2009-01-24
Banned
|
SS does not contribute to the deficit when inflows exceed outflows. It is self funding, and even better for the USG, the excess is borrowed and spent by the USG. When outflows exceed inflows, the surplus is proportionately liquidated, and as the Trust Fund has been invested in "Special US Treasuries", real debt must be issued to pay the difference, thereby adding to the deficit. If these were marketable US Treasuries, the Trust Fund could merely sell these on the open market. But the Special US Treasuries are off the books, out of sight, out of mind, until outflows exceed inflows, when the USG has to really borrow money by issuing marketable US Treasuries. If the Trust Fund had invested in marketable US Treasuries, over $2 trillion would be on the books.
SS does not have to be part of the deficit and buddet problem. Just properly adjust the payroll tax, and all is solved.
The argument that we are borrowing to pay ourselves is specious. Individuals, pensions funds, and state governments own UST's. All US citizens in these cases are being paid returns by US citizens. Households typically borrow from one budget, e.g. college savings, to fund another, i.e. car purchase. And then repay the borrowed money. Nonsensical argument, but does jerk the knee.
One question - when Obummer threatens the issuance of SS payments, but not the issuance of marketable US Treasury payments, should not the coupon rate on the Special Treasuries go up to reflect this risk?
----------
I have a reading comprehension problem and the owner banned me for repeatedly displaying it after being warned.
|
Magus
Posts: 1964
Incept: 2008-05-04
|
It's going from 4.2% "employee" / 6.2% "employer" to 6.2% for both. As Karl said, the employee is really paying for both.
----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as a result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."
-~~Ludwig V
|
R2judge
Posts: 571
Incept: 2008-04-13
Burbank CA
|
"SS does not contribute to the deficit when inflows exceed outflows. It is self funding"
Social Security is no longer self funding, as Bruce Krasting pointed out.
|
Clintb350
Posts: 1451
Incept: 2008-01-19
Southern AZ
|
Magus - Agree employee is paying for both (wages would be higher if the employer didn't have to pay 6.2%), but the effect of the coming 2% change is felt solely by current employees. And consumer spending / the economy.
|
Mortgageguymn
Posts: 1561
Incept: 2009-03-09
North Coast
|
Most of the plans to shore up Social Security call for indemnifying current recipients and soon-to-be recipients from any cuts. I personally think that current recipients and anyone born in 1961 and prior should face draconian cuts in benefits. People born in 1962 should get increased benefits, and anyone born in 1963 or later should, again, face draconian cuts.
|
Etz
Posts: 13888
Incept: 2007-06-26
LA
|
The **********s made sure to take half of it before it even expired. The CBO told us that the President’s pay raise for federal workers will cost $11 billion over ten years," says the aide. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-29....
----------
Legal chicanery and beneficent darkness are the banker's stoutest allies - F.Pecora.
|
Mrbill
Posts: 7840
Incept: 2008-10-19
North Carolina
|
Quote:Just properly adjust the payroll tax, and all is solved. In fact, this is the only possible solution, increase taxes. SS is pay-as-you-go, always has been, always will be. Because cash flow is all that matters. Congress can easily cap SS outflows to match SS cash inflows at any time, leaving those "Trust Fund" bonds to sit and "collect interest" forever and ever and ever. The only thing that matters is the appetite for the public/Fed to buy USTs to fund deficits, no matter how they are incurred. |
Blurtman
Posts: 563
Incept: 2009-01-24
Banned
|
"Social Security is no longer self funding, as Bruce Krasting pointed out." Bruce Kasting is a moron. Folks opposed to supposed entitlements often check their minds at the door when discussing SS. Here is a rebuttal to Krasting: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/12/far....See the comments for a rebuttal. SS is currently not cash flow positive as outflows exceed inflows. But it certainly is self funding as it is drawing down on the accumulated surplus. The surplus has been spent by the USG, invested thereby in Special US Treasuries. But the other knee jerk argument, that the money is gone and thereby cannot be repaid, will come as a shock to holders of marketbale US Treasuries.
----------
I have a reading comprehension problem and the owner banned me for repeatedly displaying it after being warned.
|
Thumpher
Posts: 49
Incept: 2009-06-04
Above the high water mark
|
Mortgageguymn: Quote:Most of the plans to shore up Social Security call for indemnifying current recipients and soon-to-be recipients from any cuts. I personally think that current recipients and anyone born in 1961 and prior should face draconian cuts in benefits. People born in 1962 should get increased benefits, and anyone born in 1963 or later should, again, face draconian cuts. I'm with you...except my personal opinion is that 1966 should be the over/under year. |
Mortgageguymn
Posts: 1561
Incept: 2009-03-09
North Coast
|
"200 billion is approximately one month's debt borrowing. Inconsequential."
$200 bil is about two months' borrowing. If $200 bil / year is inconsequential, then the $60-80 bil that Obama would get from rates reverting to the Clinton-era rates for people with incomes over $200/250k is REALLY inconsequential.
If you think we can cut spending by $1.2 trillion/year, you should give specifics. I'm OK with eliminating Social Security payments for anyone not born in 1961-1962, but I'm not sure how that would go over. If I ever change wives, I would probably want a carve-out for Laotian women born in 1982.
|
Andysvw
Posts: 1710
Incept: 2010-06-26
Tujunga Ca
|
Fake its all fake. The economy the courts the very money we use, its all fake.
Its all been weaponized. And that weapon is pointed at you and your kids.
We all need to ask ourselves. What is my role in all this bull****?
You can just pretend your role is Benin. Or you can face it.
THE LEFT THE TRUTH THE RIGHT
Where do you stand?
|
Smacktle
Posts: 1358
Incept: 2009-01-20
Texas
|
Happy New Year guys and gals. Good luck this coming year and may each of you enlarge your territory!
----------
The faults of the burglar are the qualities of the financier.
- George Bernard Shaw
|
Lemonaid
Posts: 9877
Incept: 2008-01-20
Metro Detroit
|
Right... approx 1.5 T / 12. more than 100 less than 200. My apologies for the math fail.
----------
"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved." Ludwig von Mises
|
