RE: The looming deficit problem

RE: The looming deficit problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 1:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted. [8\|] Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect. Which doesn't do anything except give you more now with the understanding that you'll be paying more later. Which basically is a temporary bandaid to a possible bleed- out later.

WickedsDesire -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:12:18 PM)
Do you know most people do not know the difference between the deficit and national debt...Didnt we rename one, the other, or both in the UK....you will love this one let me look it up The UK national debt is often confused (even by politicians) with the government budget deficit (officially known as the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR)), which is the rate at which the government borrows money. The former Prime Minister David Cameron was reprimanded in February 2013 by the UK Statistics Authority for creating confusion between the two, by stating in a political broadcast that his administration was "paying down Britain's debts". In fact, his administration has been attempting to reduce the deficit, not the overall debt. The latter will continue to rise even if the deficit shrinks.[6] Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £73.5 billion per annum, or around £1.4 billion each week.[2] As a result of its efforts to balance the budget, the Government forecast in 2014 that the structural deficit would be eliminated in the financial year 2017/18.[3] However, it changed the year to 2018/19 in March 2015 and to 2019/20 in July 2015.[4] The Government's target to return the public finances to surplus by 2019/2020 was abandoned by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in July 2016.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt Englanders vote for these muppets - not all of them perhaps 38% ish Actually i admired how the one called Obama dealt with it- polar opposite of how the Uk nazi ( do we call you Tories, or conservatives, thatchers minions, or utter fucking idiots - un-confuse me) party dealt with it - how are we getting along with that now fuking idiots :)

montanasubboy -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:12:25 PM)
What I find most entraining is how many do not understand economics and talk like they do. The first thing each of you should to is live on a budget. Yes, write out a budget, make sure to spend a small amount on savings. After just a few months let’s see if you can meet your goals and comment on how hard or easy it is.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:14:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted. [8\|] Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect. And again, social security DOES pay based on income. You make more, you put more in, you get more out. It's how it works. * shrug *

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:22:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Do you know most people do not know the difference between the deficit and national debt...Didnt we rename one, the other, or both in the UK....you will love this one let me look it up The UK national debt is often confused (even by politicians) with the government budget deficit (officially known as the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement (PSNCR)), which is the rate at which the government borrows money. The former Prime Minister David Cameron was reprimanded in February 2013 by the UK Statistics Authority for creating confusion between the two, by stating in a political broadcast that his administration was "paying down Britain's debts". In fact, his administration has been attempting to reduce the deficit, not the overall debt. The latter will continue to rise even if the deficit shrinks.[6] Due to the Government's significant budget deficit, the national debt is increasing by approximately £73.5 billion per annum, or around £1.4 billion each week.[2] As a result of its efforts to balance the budget, the Government forecast in 2014 that the structural deficit would be eliminated in the financial year 2017/18.[3] However, it changed the year to 2018/19 in March 2015 and to 2019/20 in July 2015.[4] The Government's target to return the public finances to surplus by 2019/2020 was abandoned by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in July 2016.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt Englanders vote for these muppets - not all of them perhaps 38% ish Actually i admired how the one called Obama dealt with it- polar opposite of how the Uk nazi ( do we call you Tories, or conservatives, thatchers minions, or utter fucking idiots - un-confuse me) party dealt with it - how are we getting along with that now fuking idiots :) The reason Obama was able to keep the deficit in check was because the interest we had to pay back on the debt was so low. However there was a 39% increase in outlays during 2009- 2013. If, for example, those outlays did not occur, we would have had a surplus (instead of breaking even) and could have applied the surplus to the debt instead of spending it on whatever that 39% increase in outlays were.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well that's the point you replied to -- that those caps should be lifted. [8\|] Right, i am saying that if you remove the caps then you are creating a type of welfare social security system unless you are going to pay out a significantly higher amount when it comes time for them to collect. And again, social security DOES pay based on income. You make more, you put more in, you get more out. It's how it works. * shrug * Agreed... but there is a limit when you're paying into it each year according to your income. Here is what it is for 2017. http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/07/what-is-the-2017-maximum-social-security-tax.aspx

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:40:07 PM)
It's like talking to a wall, but in circles. That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit. That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:50:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's like talking to a wall, but in circles. That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit. That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't. I understand. Lift the caps... so pay a percentage to ss every year no matter what you make. My point is this... what happens when the person retires and it's time for them to collect social security? Now we have to pay them back.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 2:54:53 PM)
So? That's the point of Social Security.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 3:32:09 PM)
So what would the maximim social security retirement benefit be for someone who paid an astronomical amount to it over his/her lifetime when they made lots of money and had no cap on social security taxable income? Here's what it is now: https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3735/What-is-the-maximum-Social-Security-retirement-benefit-payable

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 3:47:33 PM)
Makes no difference. Same reason as my 401k -- much more comes out of it than I put in. Return on investment. The US government has the benefit of the cash flow for zero interest until paid out. That's the mutual return on investment. Little numbers, big numbers, it's the same principle. But if you think there should be a cap, fine. But you seem to want it both ways.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 4:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Makes no difference. Same reason as my 401k -- much more comes out of it than I put in. Return on investment. The US government has the benefit of the cash flow for zero interest until paid out. That's the mutual return on investment. Little numbers, big numbers, it's the same principle. But if you think there should be a cap, fine. But you seem to want it both ways. Well if the government is forcing people to pay that much into social security that is less money the people have to invest in stocks or purchase goods and/or services... which decreases jobs and therefore decreases taxes. So how do you come out ahead?

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 4:49:36 PM)
You're just playing games. Clearly, outside spending and covering SS are two different things. Play with someone else.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 5:07:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery You're just playing games. Clearly, outside spending and covering SS are two different things. Play with someone else. No I'm not playing games at all. I am reading a book called Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt and he teaches that people just focus on what they repair with money and fail to think about what doesn't get to happen with the money (investing in progress in it's various forms). It is interesting.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 5:11:39 PM)
I see. There's an old GOP argument that people would make more investing their own money. And technically, it's true -- but, that's 1) IF they actually saved and invested (most people have negative savings, and only a fraction are on track for retirement), and 2) only true if they invest wisely, as they would also be subject to greater risk. Before SS, there was widespread elderly poverty. Now there isn't. That's a good thing.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 5:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I see. There's an old GOP argument that people would make more investing their own money. And technically, it's true -- but, that's 1) IF they actually saved and invested (most people have negative savings, and only a fraction are on track for retirement), and 2) only true if they invest wisely, as they would also be subject to greater risk. Before SS, there was widespread elderly poverty. Now there isn't. That's a good thing. Yes i totally agree with you. I guess my only concern is where the balance is for requiring people who make decent money for mandated contribution. Social Security is supposed to provide a safety net from poverty, but not supposed to give huge retirement payouts.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 5:46:51 PM)
Social Security, despite GOP rhetoric, is fully funded. You pay for it, you withdraw. All those retiring baby boomers? They have kids, grandkids, great-grand kids, lots of people paying in. The "shortage" is a misnomer--it's decades of Congress pretending to fund the government by dipping into the SS fund. If they paid it all back, with interest, SS would flush. The problem is that Congress, alas, acts as agent for the taxpayer, so it's the taxpayers on the hook for the money Congress owes SS to pay retiring tax payers. In short, it's government mismanagement, not a SS problem. But that distinction doesn't help the bottom line problem.

Musicmystery -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 6:16:42 PM)
Here's The Evidence Republicans Are Already Increasing The Deficit ... Big Time http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2017/01/08/heres-evidence-republicans-are-already-increasing-the-deficit-big-time/#abc266658fca From Forbes, no less.

tamaka -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 6:22:54 PM)
The scary part about the wall is that it also serves to corral and lock us all in.

mnottertail -> RE: The looming deficit problem (1/12/2017 7:30:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery It's like talking to a wall, but in circles. That's why the poster said lift the caps. Then, there wouldn't be that limit. That's the last time I'm going to repeat it. If you aren't going to understand it, you just aren't. I understand. Lift the caps... so pay a percentage to ss every year no matter what you make. My point is this... what happens when the person retires and it's time for them to collect social security? Now we have to pay them back. And you, us, we, whomever had the free use of that money for all those years, borrow umpteen trillion dollars at no ongoing interest and no guarenteed payback for 40 years. Thats a damn good deal. Of course, if you weren't fiscally irresponsible as the nutsuckers are, you would budget that, and be fiscally responsible with your borrowing, using it for the good of the country, not for handing out like a crack whorewith both hands to corporations, and spending on worthless military-industrial complex consumables and so on, but on infrastructure and american citizenry.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875