It's a new week, and the new word on the street is that Democrats, including Obama, plan to cave to Republican demands for extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the very richest Americans.
In the Senate an attempt at compromise was made; Democrats offered to extend the tax breaks for those earning up to a million dollars a year, up from $200,000 - a five fold increase. Nope, not good enough.
Don't Republicans care about their base? What percentage of registered Republicans fall within that range between $200,000 and a million dollars? It's got to be the vast majority of people who actually walked into polling places and pulled a lever, punched a chad, or left fingerprints on a touchscreen voting for Republican candidates.
I suppose Republicans took a calculated risk that Democrats and Obama would cave to get a few more months of unemployment (which most Americans support), an end to Don't Ask - Don't tell (which most Americans and most military personnel support), and ratification of a new nuclear weapons treaty (which most Americans, most Republicans, and most of the Western World support).
Then again, maybe Republicans were willing to risk losing the tax break for the vast majority of their voting base because (1) those voters will vote for them next time anyway, and (2) the Republicans true masters want their tax break, and if they don't get it those masters may choose to fund alternate candidates in upcoming elections - and not provide cushy, private-sector jobs for those Senators who failed them. Yes, few Republican voters earning even $500,000/year will be able to provide an ex-Senator a do-little job paying $200,000/yr and up. But those earning $10 million per year and up almost certainly can because they control corporations with even greater resources.
So, all you loyal Republican voters out there, just remember that your incumbent leaders were willing to screw you over for the sake of continuing enormous tax breaks for the top 0.5% of the population. Your leaders aren't representing your interests and haven't been for many years.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Randi Rhodes has jumped on the Hartmann Social Security Bandwagon
I just heard Randi Rhodes say on her radio program that it's "not fair" that people aren't required to pay into the Social Security system on their income over $106,000/year.
I enjoy listening to your program, Randi, and I agree that the proposal for "deficit reduction" is a sham and likely aimed at privatizing Social Security. I believe it should be burned in a trash can in the parking lot.
BUT, Randi, don't lower yourself to the level of Fox and Friends. If Social Security is a retirement plan, then of course it is fair to stop taking money away from a person when there is no way in Hell that money will ever benefit that person later in their life.
If you want to tax people, fine. But be honest about it and call it a tax.
I enjoy listening to your program, Randi, and I agree that the proposal for "deficit reduction" is a sham and likely aimed at privatizing Social Security. I believe it should be burned in a trash can in the parking lot.
BUT, Randi, don't lower yourself to the level of Fox and Friends. If Social Security is a retirement plan, then of course it is fair to stop taking money away from a person when there is no way in Hell that money will ever benefit that person later in their life.
If you want to tax people, fine. But be honest about it and call it a tax.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Response to Thom Hartmann re Social Security
I like Thom Hartmann's show. I think he calls a lot of hypocrites on their hypocrisy, which is always entertaining.
I was dismayed a few days ago to hear him state that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the big problem with Social Security that no one is talking about is that it could be fixed, forever, by simply removing the ceiling on income for paying into the system. As it stands now, once a person has earned approximately $106,000 in a year, they are done contributing to Social Security. No more money is withheld or owed to Uncle Sam. For every dollar earned beyond $106,000 (approximately), one gets a 13% bonus. However, if everyone paid that 13% on EVERY dollar of income, all Social Security benefit payments could double right now and the system would be completely solvent forever.
There are at least two problems with Thom's commentary.
First, Thom spoke of people earning beyond the ceiling as "receiving a bonus" of 13%. This is double-speak worthy of a DC insider. Yes, to those of lesser incomes who never actually see that 13% because it's withheld by their employer and sent directly to the State and Federal Governments, it might appear that wealthier people are getting some kind of bonus. However, this would be lazy or defeatist thinking. Every dollar that is kept from you by your government is a dollar kept from you by your government. It may be for the greater good. It may be a deduction with which you agree and desire be taken. But it is certainly no bonus to you simply because the government stops taking it away.
Second, Thom suggests treating Social Security as if it is just another tax.
Once and for all we must decide if Social Security is an insurance plan, albeit forced upon the public, or just another tax. I think there can be no doubt that the vast majority of the public would say that it should be a separate program, kept in a "lockbox" (remember that?), to make sure it is there when they (i.e. you) need it. The money collected should not be co-mingled with the general budget, subject to the whims of whatever spendthrift politicians are in office this week. That money should be kept secure and invested only in the safest places, and in such a way as to keep up with the cost of living. In other words, an insurance-like program. For better or worse, this seems to be what the public wants.
One characteristic of insurance is that one's premiums payments usually bear some direct relationship to the expected or potential benefit one is to receive from the insurance if and/or when it pays out. However, Thom's suggestion would result in some very rich folks paying in massive amounts of money now that would bear no relationship to any benefit they might receive in the future.
Just to keep the math easy, these will all be in today's dollars and no adjustments are made for cost of living or the change in the value of money over time. Let's assume a rich, privileged person aged 21 earns 106,000 per year every year until they retire at age 66. They will receive the maximum payout possible of $2,345/month. Since they have received only the best healthcare since birth, let's assume they live to be 100 years old. 34 years X $2,346 X12 = $957,168 total in benefits would be received, just shy of one million dollars. Note that this is only $28,152 per year - not bad if your house is paid off, yours kids are all done with school and are working, and your only expenses are food, utilities, and transportation, occasional car repair, a once-per-year trip someplace exotic....well, perhaps a trip to Branson, MO, instead.
How much did they (including the employer's contributions) pay in to receive this nearly one million dollars? 13% of earnings comes to $620,100 from age 21 to 66 (obviously the system has to have some kind of interest earning capacity in it to be able to pay out more than it takes in).
What about those who earn a million dollars per year? The figure balloons to $5,850,000 paid in from age 21 to 66. Yet in our example, using the current maximum benefit of $2,346, this person also would receive a total of $957,168 if they live to 100, only about 16% of what they paid in. Even if benefits payments doubled, as suggested by Thom, this person would still receive less than one-third of what they actually paid in.
About 350,000 households filed tax returns indicating an adjusted gross income of 1,000,000 or more. I'm not going to do all the math, figure about how many of these households have 1 or 2 income earners, etc.... Use your imagination.
But if you assume every one of these households had only one person paying in to Social Security, and even if you assume that EVERY one of these households has two persons each of whom will collect DOUBLE the maximum benefit (which is not actually possible under current law), the most any of these household would every recoup from Social Security is a bit less than 2/3rds of what they paid in. Again, this is also assuming the one income earner paid in from age 21 to 66 at the maximum rate, and this also assumes both members of these tw0-person households live to be 100 years old.
It's not a very good insurance plan for them, is it?
Do an awful lot of rich folks get away with paying an awfully small percentage of their income in taxes? Are many of the very richest persons in the county lapping up government handouts at the public money trough, getting even richer in the process? Yes. But I don't believe compounding this bizarre inequity in our system with another bizarre one is the way to solve our financial problems as a country.
Get government handouts to the richest folks under control. Stop insane spending on building more nuclear weapons (we still do have enough). Stop buying military hardware that the military leaders themselves have begged us to stop sending them. Stop handing out truckloads of the People's money to big banks that did some really stupid things with the last few truckloads of money they had.
Stop electing and re-electing politicians who are bought and paid for by banking and military industrial complex interests. Start paying attention to what your representatives are doing with your money.
Start calling things by their real names. Get suspicious every time you hear a new name or word for something related to finance; new labels usually are just a way to sell you they same old stuff you didn't like, or that didn't work, last time.
If you want to increase taxes on, or take away government handouts to, the richest Americans to help fund a social program for those less fortunate, then call it what it really is and let's have an up-or-down vote on it. But don't lie and call it the taking away of an undeserved bonus, Thom. That's so beneath you.
I was dismayed a few days ago to hear him state that (and I'm paraphrasing here) the big problem with Social Security that no one is talking about is that it could be fixed, forever, by simply removing the ceiling on income for paying into the system. As it stands now, once a person has earned approximately $106,000 in a year, they are done contributing to Social Security. No more money is withheld or owed to Uncle Sam. For every dollar earned beyond $106,000 (approximately), one gets a 13% bonus. However, if everyone paid that 13% on EVERY dollar of income, all Social Security benefit payments could double right now and the system would be completely solvent forever.
There are at least two problems with Thom's commentary.
First, Thom spoke of people earning beyond the ceiling as "receiving a bonus" of 13%. This is double-speak worthy of a DC insider. Yes, to those of lesser incomes who never actually see that 13% because it's withheld by their employer and sent directly to the State and Federal Governments, it might appear that wealthier people are getting some kind of bonus. However, this would be lazy or defeatist thinking. Every dollar that is kept from you by your government is a dollar kept from you by your government. It may be for the greater good. It may be a deduction with which you agree and desire be taken. But it is certainly no bonus to you simply because the government stops taking it away.
Second, Thom suggests treating Social Security as if it is just another tax.
Once and for all we must decide if Social Security is an insurance plan, albeit forced upon the public, or just another tax. I think there can be no doubt that the vast majority of the public would say that it should be a separate program, kept in a "lockbox" (remember that?), to make sure it is there when they (i.e. you) need it. The money collected should not be co-mingled with the general budget, subject to the whims of whatever spendthrift politicians are in office this week. That money should be kept secure and invested only in the safest places, and in such a way as to keep up with the cost of living. In other words, an insurance-like program. For better or worse, this seems to be what the public wants.
One characteristic of insurance is that one's premiums payments usually bear some direct relationship to the expected or potential benefit one is to receive from the insurance if and/or when it pays out. However, Thom's suggestion would result in some very rich folks paying in massive amounts of money now that would bear no relationship to any benefit they might receive in the future.
Just to keep the math easy, these will all be in today's dollars and no adjustments are made for cost of living or the change in the value of money over time. Let's assume a rich, privileged person aged 21 earns 106,000 per year every year until they retire at age 66. They will receive the maximum payout possible of $2,345/month. Since they have received only the best healthcare since birth, let's assume they live to be 100 years old. 34 years X $2,346 X12 = $957,168 total in benefits would be received, just shy of one million dollars. Note that this is only $28,152 per year - not bad if your house is paid off, yours kids are all done with school and are working, and your only expenses are food, utilities, and transportation, occasional car repair, a once-per-year trip someplace exotic....well, perhaps a trip to Branson, MO, instead.
How much did they (including the employer's contributions) pay in to receive this nearly one million dollars? 13% of earnings comes to $620,100 from age 21 to 66 (obviously the system has to have some kind of interest earning capacity in it to be able to pay out more than it takes in).
What about those who earn a million dollars per year? The figure balloons to $5,850,000 paid in from age 21 to 66. Yet in our example, using the current maximum benefit of $2,346, this person also would receive a total of $957,168 if they live to 100, only about 16% of what they paid in. Even if benefits payments doubled, as suggested by Thom, this person would still receive less than one-third of what they actually paid in.
About 350,000 households filed tax returns indicating an adjusted gross income of 1,000,000 or more. I'm not going to do all the math, figure about how many of these households have 1 or 2 income earners, etc.... Use your imagination.
But if you assume every one of these households had only one person paying in to Social Security, and even if you assume that EVERY one of these households has two persons each of whom will collect DOUBLE the maximum benefit (which is not actually possible under current law), the most any of these household would every recoup from Social Security is a bit less than 2/3rds of what they paid in. Again, this is also assuming the one income earner paid in from age 21 to 66 at the maximum rate, and this also assumes both members of these tw0-person households live to be 100 years old.
It's not a very good insurance plan for them, is it?
Do an awful lot of rich folks get away with paying an awfully small percentage of their income in taxes? Are many of the very richest persons in the county lapping up government handouts at the public money trough, getting even richer in the process? Yes. But I don't believe compounding this bizarre inequity in our system with another bizarre one is the way to solve our financial problems as a country.
Get government handouts to the richest folks under control. Stop insane spending on building more nuclear weapons (we still do have enough). Stop buying military hardware that the military leaders themselves have begged us to stop sending them. Stop handing out truckloads of the People's money to big banks that did some really stupid things with the last few truckloads of money they had.
Stop electing and re-electing politicians who are bought and paid for by banking and military industrial complex interests. Start paying attention to what your representatives are doing with your money.
Start calling things by their real names. Get suspicious every time you hear a new name or word for something related to finance; new labels usually are just a way to sell you they same old stuff you didn't like, or that didn't work, last time.
If you want to increase taxes on, or take away government handouts to, the richest Americans to help fund a social program for those less fortunate, then call it what it really is and let's have an up-or-down vote on it. But don't lie and call it the taking away of an undeserved bonus, Thom. That's so beneath you.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
DC Metro Service Cuts Came Early
I was reading about proposed DC Metro service cuts tonight while
awaiting the Red Line train at Gallery Place when my train pulled into
the station. It was about 8:20 PM.
awaiting the Red Line train at Gallery Place when my train pulled into
the station. It was about 8:20 PM.
I was in line to enter the last door of the last car. The platform
was not crowded, for some reason it took a long time for disembarking
passengers to do so. There were not many, but they were slow andsome
were confused and got back on.
Only about 4-5 people got through my door when the door closed. Other
groups to my right also said that only a few, or NONE, of those
waiting got into their cars. I could see that the last three cars
headed out towards Metro Center with very few people.
15 minutes later another train arrives. I position myself close to a
door further "up" the platform. Once again, the driver began
announcing the door closing after only about six passengers had passed
through my door! Suddenly the crowd surged on. I and maybe ten more
were swept on, the last few seemed to be holding the doors open.
Then the driver has the nerve to sternly admonish us and those on the
platforms to use all available doors. I can't say what was happening
in the front cars, but two different drivers were only allowing a
small fraction of those on the platform(s) to get thru doors at the
back of the train.
I suppose it's possible the drivers figure out that if, for example,
48 people are waiting and train has 18 doors, then drivers will allow
only enough time for three passengers to board through any one door.
Perhaps this is a new cost-cutting measure? But, I don't see how
annoying riders will help.
__________________________
Sent from Don's Phone.
Donald A. MacKay
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)