Why are we a divided Nation?

You are incorrect. Every dollar the government forcefully confiscates stops me from investing it. If my investments tank, I can live in them and rent out the rooms. If you add up what you paid into SS, you could own a home and provide income for your family for generations.

 

Why are you personalizing the issues? Most Americans get a much better return through Social Security than they can earn from investments.

"Among current workers and retirees, the rates of annual return varied by about two percentage points - from a high of 6.52 percent (for single-earning couples born in 1920) to 4.52 percent (for their counterparts born in 1985)."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-miller-socialsecurity/whats-your-rate-of-return-on-social-security-idUSBRE89H0YG20121018​

This is an important question, IMO.

The government has promised benefits to SS recipients. Does it matter if it borrowed from SS or borrowed by issuing bonds to the general public?

Yeah, that's fine for me because I make a lot more than 6.52% on my investments and I can afford to risk all of my SS (that I don't collect). But what happens if someone who needs SS loses their money and has little or nothing coming in from SS? Do they going to get welfare? What about the guy who "invests" in a $40,000 truck every year or two?

 

I think you may have missed the part about already paying for it.
But yes your right. The red states throw the poor to the wolves.
Heartless.

 

Because I am an individual and not comfortable bleating with the sheep. Its my money! If most Americans want to buy an annuity product from the government, I would never force my opinions on them. If you add up the money you paid in, you could own a home that would provide income for your family for generations.

What about the guy investing in trucks? If the fleet of trucks provides income, keep investing.

 

Why should you and I get stuck paying welfare to people who can can't make 6% on their investments?

 

SS forces people to save for retirement and keeps us from having to decide whether or not they're entitled to welfare.

Own a home where? My home is worth more than a million bucks.

The word "invest" was in quotes because a lot of folks buy trucks just to drive around. That's their right, but why should the rest of us have to sport such folks to retirement money?

 

I never suggested we should. Reducing dependency on the government is what I am suggesting. SS was a good idea and has helped many. Why is it wrong to seek a better plan?

 

Add up how much you have paid in and you have your answer.

I do realize that many squander their money away and in some cases are as bad as our government. Maybe take the same amount that goes to SS and allow competition.

 

well if it's not the only example of socialist countries that we have are North Korea and Venezuela.

 

Which is why I told you to take it to the supreme Court.

 

I find that to be a waste of time, because I could have enough proof to prove my case in court and it wouldn't be enough for you.

It's called the dunning-kruger effect.

So with nasty indignant people I don't bother it's a waste of time.

 

Relevance? The importance of the graph is that SS projects to be a stable and small percentage of the GDP. BTW, federal government spending today is about the same fraction of GDP as it was in the mid-1950s.

A small increase in SS taxes will cover the fund deficit

The government has to pay back what it borrowed, from SS or wherever.

 

You are the one who should ask them to leave, you have a right to vote. Until they leave you are under strict surveillance.

 

When he was the president.
He only discussed issues related to altercations between black and white, implying that black people are the victims of the white people.

 

Why should I? If they are watching me they'll keep me safe.

 

When you had medical insurance you were taking away access to medical services from other people. Now you know how the y feel.

 

You are the one who does not want foreigners to discuss problems in American society.

 

Okay. I'm going to have to address your post in manageable chunks because I want to read other posts as well. I'm going to actually read Greenburg's paper to see where he got his calculations from. But just glancing briefly I see that even he has stated that tax rates for the highest 1% of earners has fallen to approximately 1/5 what they were in the 50's. I am not sure how that jibes with his assertion that average effective rates were not that much different than they were in the 50's. It appears he took his data from Picketty et al so lets take his figures at face value and study the conclusion.

It seems he is making my argument not the other way around. Let's start with levels of inequality we have today as compared to the 50's:



So that is pretty stark considering that the productivity of American workers has increased at a linear rate since the 50's as well.

The level that the highest marginal tax rate would have cut in would have been $200,000 which is about 2 million in today's dollars.There would have been only about 10,000 families that would have been affected by the highest marginal tax rate back then compared with today when there are roughly 1.4 million households making 10 million a year which would be the threshold of what where I would put the highest marginal tax rate. So you get to keep the first 10 M then the marginal rate would kick in. I think a marginal rate of 75% for highest earners would not be out of line considering......

That is a huge chunk of cash when you actually examine it and would go a long way to paying for health and social programs for immigrants and other Americans who have fallen behind.

And how many billionaires are there today compared with the fifties? You cited one back then,Getty, but in fact there would have been 5 or less by 1960. So very few people would have been paying the top rate back then as compared with today when there are at least 600 billionaires in the US - perhaps a little more and considering the gains the top 1% have made through tax cuts over the years, it does not seem out of line go spot them the first 10 million and then bring in the highest marginal rate. If you are a billionaire with the luxury of living in a stable, functioning republic with strong property rights and a lack of social disruptions, it seems to be if you can't live on 10M a year on top of your fortune, you are doing something wrong........a little bit Trumpian to be so irresponsible with cash even.


https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...ics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality

I'm still reading through the Tax Foundation article but lets be clear that this organization, much like the Fraser Institute up here is all about justifying tax cuts and wealth inequality - it is their reason for being. The Fraser Institute even has a tax freedom day just like TF. This is a typical critique of these kinds of arguments if you are interested:

https://www.cbpp.org/research/feder...ot-represent-typical-households-tax-burdens-2

So even though I think Greenburg's source material is valid, I think he is still comparing apples to oranges because of the vast rise in inequality over the same period and the fact that very few families actually paid the top marginal rate. So there is the argument I would make and I would follow up with questioning whether business start ups is a relevant stat for measuring economic growth due to tax cuts. How many of those businesses actually survived and made it would be my first question? I would say a better measure would be in growth in GDP in pure economic sense:



https://business.lehigh.edu/blog/2017/do-tax-cuts-spur-economic-growth-be-skeptical

So that would be the gist of my argument for starters. I still maintain that even with the supposed payments to minorities and immigrants, with a small tweaking of tax policy to make it more fair and more progressive, you can easily afford programs to support universal health care - especially if you downgraded the military budget to more sane levels at the same time.

Interesting argument though............still going through your post and some of the links................

 

You are incorrect. I paid for my family of 6 and had little need for medical care, leaving a surplus and lower rates for others.

I know how they feel. I grew up on Welfare and Medi-Cal. I broke a few bones as a kid and know what it is like to be in county hospital next to a patient who was handcuffed to his bed. Poor people always had access to medical care.

The reason we are having this discussion is the record levels of illness in the US. Most of these illnesses are the result of consuming products that tax payers are forced to subsidize.

I grew up on beans and rice. Todays welfare recipients spend 10% of what they receive on beverages sweetened with HFCS and we already have a third of our population diabetic or pre-diabetic. Once symptoms show up, pharm products are prescribed to mask those symptoms and they get sicker.

So how do you feel about being forced to make and keep people sick so that the pharm industry can enjoy record profits?

 

Why should I? If they are watching me they'll keep me safe.

You can discuss any problem you want here I'm sorry I gave you the idea you shouldn't.

 

Do you really think pols will let people starve who lost their retirement funds? If we don't force people to save, we're going to end up paying.

Think not? 40% of Medicaid goes for assisted living help for indigent seniors.

 

What do you think will happen if we don't insist people save for retirement?

What's your better plan?

 

You don't just "take it to the Supreme Court." Geezuz.

 

What a croc!

Quite the admission for you. Okay.

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

― Benjamin Franklin

When you provide for people, they become more dependent. When you make them do for themselves, they become more independent. Obviously there will always be a small sliver of people who are too old, too sick, too disabled to do for themselves, but it isn't 30.2% of the population, which is the percentage currently collecting welfare of one kind or another, and that's just the natives. 51% of immigrants are on welfare. Why?