Magox Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 You must not understand what he is saying or misinterpreting it. It's very simple, each year the government uses all of the revenues it takes in to fund all of its expenditures. I understand quite clearly that there is a commingling of funds. It's a shell game, funds from S.S are being used for other expenditures, which is an argument that many of us on this board have made a bazillion times, but that doesn't support his argument whatsoever. Maybe you guys would have a point if the "poor's" contributions to S.S weren't being reciprocated back to the contributor, but that isn't the case. That is a lame argument that no rational thinking person who doesn't have a partisan bias could possibly make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Maybe I missed it, but I expected to see "you're an idiot." I thought your post was a good one. I only call people idiots when they deserve it. It's also a post that helped me make my point: if there was in any way a surplus, it was via accounting methods that by any other standard would be considered dishonest when not actually illegal. But, if it makes you feel more loved, I can call you an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 27, 2010 Author Share Posted October 27, 2010 I understand quite clearly that there is a commingling of funds. It's a shell game, funds from S.S are being used for other expenditures, which is an argument that many of us on this board have made a bazillion times, but that doesn't support his argument whatsoever. Maybe you guys would have a point if the "poor's" contributions to S.S weren't being reciprocated back to the contributor, but that isn't the case. That is a lame argument that no rational thinking person who doesn't have a partisan bias could possibly make. Maybe you are showing your bias. The point made is that all of the revenue raised is used for all govt. expenditures. The fact that they call one a payroll tax and the other an income tax really doesn't matter--they both reduce my current income and raise government's current revenues. The only thing that it allows us to say is that the so-called surplus of $4.5 trillion, the accumulated excess over the SS payments over time, is the amount government has used from this particular source on all of the other things it buys. You are simply looking at things wrong. I'm sure you know government spends a lot on a lot of different things. While there is a commitment to spend on certain things, there is no obligation. The government has made commitments on SS and Medicare, but they have no obligation. They can change benefits and taxes anytime they want (it may be politically difficult, but they can, and they will), just as they can change commitments to any other form of spending. When they are talking taxes it is usually federal income tax. While I don't consider myself poor (two cars, cell phones, Directv, and kids go to private school until 6th grade) based on income and number of dependants(6), I haven't paid federal income tax in years. So the only people dishing BS is the Obama admin, when they say they are going to cut my taxes. If they let the Bush cuts expire I will pay income tax again. Which is why I've always argued for cutting the payroll tax instead of income taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Maybe you are showing your bias. The point made is that all of the revenue raised is used for all govt. expenditures. The fact that they call one a payroll tax and the other an income tax really doesn't matter--they both reduce my current income and raise government's current revenues. The only thing that it allows us to say is that the so-called surplus of $4.5 trillion, the accumulated excess over the SS payments over time, is the amount government has used from this particular source on all of the other things it buys. You are simply looking at things wrong. Riiight, says the guy who said The greatest sleight of hand in recent history occurred in the 1980s under Reagan/Greenspan. I'm not buying into your partisan reasoning of the Treasuries Ponzi Scheme tactics as justification that everyone is truly paying federal income taxes because of the commingling of these funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 27, 2010 Author Share Posted October 27, 2010 Riiight, says the guy who said I'm not buying into your partisan reasoning of the Treasuries Ponzi Scheme tactics as justification that everyone is truly paying federal income taxes because of the commingling of these funds. It is a fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the top brackets and then raised the payroll tax. I guess you are having difficulty stepping out of your narrow, old fashioned view on this one... We are talking about $4.5 trillion here. That is not some simple "co-mingling of funds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 I guess you are having difficulty stepping out of your narrow, old fashioned view on this one... Coming from you Priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts