🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>estimate at $400 billion next year.

Nor would eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget for a year.  BUT,
eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would completely
pay for the deficit.  Interesting...

[]

	"eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would
	completely pay for the deficit."

Yes, but those benefits are paid completely out of FICA payroll taxes,
i.e., taxes that -- in theory -- are earmarked to pay these benefits.

If the feds did their accounting honestly, the Social Security income
and payments would be on a separate budget and wouldn't be part of this
discussion.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>estimate at $400 billion next year.
>
>And if you did confiscate all their income, what would you do about the
>next tax year? People don't work for nothing.
>
>Clearly, although "tax the rich" makes great campaign rhetoric, to finance
>the government spending programs the tax increases will have to dig deep
>into the middle class.







Why is it that this message did not become clear before the election.
Perhaps it did but no one heard it.  Irrespective, we will be getting
this deficit under control one way or the other according to Pres. Clinton.












-- 
Statement made by Oliver North when asked to comment on Clinton's draft
record.  "I would rather vote for Jane Fonda than Gov. Clinton!  At least
she has been to North Vietnam."

>	"eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would
>	completely pay for the deficit."
>
>Yes, but those benefits are paid completely out of FICA payroll taxes,
>i.e., taxes that -- in theory -- are earmarked to pay these benefits.
>
>If the feds did their accounting honestly, the Social Security income
>and payments would be on a separate budget and wouldn't be part of this
>discussion.

Town Hall had a discussion on SS the other night. One critic said that
the SS ``trust'' fund is completely gone. Empty! Kaput! Drained! The SS drone
just looked sheepish and said something to the effect that congress
will always come to the rescue of the SS system.

Within 15 years, it will take two working people to support every person
on SS.

If you're under 50, may as well kiss-off SS, unless you actually DO trust your
government!

Mike

charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

>In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>>estimate at $400 billion next year.

>Nor would eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget for a year.  BUT,
>eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would completely
>pay for the deficit.  Interesting...

Even more interesting . . . the federal government adds in the present
Social Security surplus monies when it computes the deficit, otherwise
the defecit would be much higher.  Economists are worrying now about
when people of President-elect Clinton's age get to retirement (read
Social Security eligibility) age and how the current surplus will most
*likely* become a deficit.

allen

charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

>In article <1533@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>>estimate at $400 billion next year.

>Nor would eliminating the ENTIRE defense budget for a year.  BUT,
>eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would completely
>pay for the deficit.  Interesting...

I'd be careful about making such statements, since Rosty may hear of it
and turn you into the Secret Service for making an implied threat against
his worthless life. :-) :-) He has *no* sense of humor about SS since a
gang of grey-hairs surrounded his gummint limo and bashed it sufficiently
to get the point across to him that SS is *strictly* off limits, no matter
it is the tit that pokes most prominently from the bloated government sow.

I read in the papers that liberals now tell us SS is a "regressive tax"
needing "reform" (translation: get a firm grip on your wallet). Pop quiz:
does anyone recall the good old days when the lying rascals in Congress
were still selling this unclever Ponzi scheme as "insurance" to be "fully
funded from contributions" (like FDR said), with withdrawals limited based
upon the amount of those "individual contributions"? And that it would be
applied to only the first, um, $10k of income? And the assertion that SS
would "never" be expected to give anyone enough money for full retire-
ment. Listen to what you are hearing now. Carefully.

Isn't it odd that liberals who have been scrupulously patrolling society
for even the smallest "unfairness" have required almost a half-century
to suddenly discover that SS is "regressive" -- a word that works well
only if coupled with the word "tax" (rather than "contribution", which
these liars insisted on as the operative covert terminology to promote
this grand theft)?.

If you are under the age of 30, you should be pissed through at what has
been going on. Your beans are making a one-way trip into the pork barrel,
kids, promoted there by the same liberal establishment that told your
grandparents how "cheap" would be SS ("less than 2% of wages") and the
same felons who said the same to your greatgrandparents about the Income
Tax ("never greater than 10% of taxable income, and then only for the
*very* rich"). And later tried to tell my generation that the National
Debt "isn't a problem, since we just owe the money to ourselves". Right.

Be well aware: the sizeable beans coming off your paycheck (that might
otherwise have been able to fund a meaningful retirement) ain't *never*
coming back out in your direction, ever again. They are gone for good,
if simple math is applied to the inexorable population numbers. You
are being "had", big time. And it's about to get alot worse.

Indeed, any time you hear words about taxes to be applied "only to the 
very rich", count on it that you are being set up as a sucker for the
long term: the big money is -- and has always been -- in the middle
class.

And that's almost certainly you.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.

Back to the original post - taxing those with incomes > $200K.  If you are
trying to start a small business, you will find that 1) venture capitalists
are a tight group, and typically don't invest in firms unless the projections
are for huge returns; 2) banks don't want to touch you unless you have a lot
of capital to reposses (store inventories do nicely); 3) the only real source
of investment money for, say, a small startup software firm is professionals.

Yup, it's that heinous group of exploitive bourgeoise that is investing in new
jobs, cottage industries, and originality.

- jeff

There is NO recession!  Can you believe it?  Imagine that.  In fact,
according to a report just released by the experts (economists from
several Universities), the recession ended in March 1991!!  But they
didn't want to announce in prematurely (before the election).  Now
that President Bush has taken the hit for a worthless economy (best in
the world right now), the truth can be made known.  In fact, they say
that if there is a downturn in the economy, it will be the start of a
NEW recession.  What out Governor Clinton.  You won't be able to blame
it on Bush!!

[]

	"Town Hall had a discussion on SS the other night. One critic
	said that the SS ``trust'' fund is completely gone. Empty!
	Kaput! Drained!"

It's a matter of perspective.  The surplus of FICA tax income over
entitlement outgo has been invested in Treasury bonds.  In other words,
"loaned" to the rest of the federal government.

But what else would you do?  Say you're the fund manager and you're
sitting on 100e9 dollars for ten years.  You can't stuff
thousand-dollar bills into your mattress -- you have to invest the
stuff somewhere.  Treasury bonds are the "reasonably prudent"
investment of choice here.

The interesting question is: are those T-bonds held by the feds
included in the figure reported as the national debt?

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

>>	"eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would
>>	completely pay for the deficit."
>>
>>Yes, but those benefits are paid completely out of FICA payroll taxes,
>>i.e., taxes that -- in theory -- are earmarked to pay these benefits.
>>
>>If the feds did their accounting honestly, the Social Security income
>>and payments would be on a separate budget and wouldn't be part of this
>>discussion.

>Town Hall had a discussion on SS the other night. One critic said that
>the SS ``trust'' fund is completely gone. Empty! Kaput! Drained! The SS drone
>just looked sheepish and said something to the effect that congress
>will always come to the rescue of the SS system.

>Within 15 years, it will take two working people to support every person
>on SS.

>If you're under 50, may as well kiss-off SS, unless you actually DO trust your
>government!

The Social Security fund is actuall in the black these days and THAT'S why
eliminating the benefits for just one year *might* help to pay for the
defecit, if and ONLY if the funds for that year were earmarked for payment
of the defecit.

The real problem, as you alluded to, is the SS fund *possibly* running out
of bucks by the time Clinton's generation reaches retirement and SS 
eligibility age.

allen

In <13098@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

:There is NO recession!  Can you believe it?  Imagine that.  In fact,
:according to a report just released by the experts (economists from
:several Universities), the recession ended in March 1991!!  But they
:didn't want to announce in prematurely (before the election).  Now
:that President Bush has taken the hit for a worthless economy (best in
:the world right now), the truth can be made known.  In fact, they say
:that if there is a downturn in the economy, it will be the start of a
:NEW recession.  What out Governor Clinton.  You won't be able to blame
:it on Bush!!

What difference will it make -- the media won't report it!

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?

bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:

>According to Prof. Walter Williams on the National Business Report, the
>aggregate income of all Americans earning over $200,000 per year is
>$209 billion. Therefore, if you simply confiscated *all* the income of
>the rich, we would not eliminate the deficit, which some projections
>estimate at $400 billion next year.

In his book, _Capitalist Fools_, Nicholas Hoffman talks of the
difficulty that the people at "Forbes" magazine had in compiling a list
of the wealthy.  There are two ways to measure "rich": how much someone
is taking in, or how much someone has.  Hoffman says the wealthy have
devoted much time and money in erecting barriers precisely to keep people
from knowing how much they have.

A lot of this wealth is purposely undervalued to avoid higher taxes on 
it.  It's similar to Tektronix carrying a big chunk of Beaverton on their
corporate books at 20-year-old values, which is what I've heard they've 
done.  Might explain some of the interest in Tek --- close it down and 
turn it into a condo park.  :-)

Given the complexity of the tax code, I would not be at all surprised to
hear of people with millions of dollars in real estate or other wealth
who have relatively little taxable income.  In fact, I'd be much
surprised to hear the opposite.

Regardless of what you think of Philip Knight and Nike, Bill Gates and
Microsoft, or Sam Walton and Wal-Mart, to varying degrees they've changed 
the country.  I don't have much problem with a tax system that lets them
keep most of what they earn, particularly they're encouraged to keep 
re-investing in their business.  I do have a problem with a tax system 
where you can get a billion dollars on your birthday simply for having 
the right parent ... but then I'm not much on monarchies, either.

The United States had been moving pretty steadily to a relatively
classless society.  I would point to the '50s and '60s as a high point
for lots of groups: class structure was breaking, racial barriers were
cracking.  Why?  Because it looked like there was enough for everybody
to have a place at the table.  Prosperity looked inevitable.  We would
have the "Great Society".

In the '70s and '80s, the economy slowed down and people started looking
out for themselves first and foremost.  We're seeing the results of
this selfishness in our streets and schools now, and nobody can be certain
that the future will work out as we hope.  People who enter many public
school systems are behind for life, no matter how talented they are and
no matter what they might contribute to society.

To bring rambling back to the subject at hand: I'd argue that the two 
kinds of rich are self-made and inherited.  While Sam Walton was
entitled to everything he made, the billions his children received would
pay for an awful lot of Head Start classes, classes that might keep
children in school and out of prison.  At some point, I hope that the
"divine right of the rich" goes the way of the "divine right of kings".

"But the rich have always given all their property to their heirs" can
be answered by "My ancestors always owned your ancestors", assuming, of 
course, that your ancestors were serfs in the right part of Russia.
Things change ...

N.B.: _Capitalist Fools_ started out as a biography of Malcom Forbes,
but Hoffman decided that Forbes really wasn't worth writing a book
about.  Instead he talks about the "Robber Barons" and what they did as
opposed to most of today's Fortune 500 CEOs.  As you might expect, Roger
Smith of GM shows up more than once.  Good read.

--
jamesd@techbook.COM                   "2516 newsgroups & nothing on ..."  
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. (503) 220-0636 - 1200/2400, N81  
Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: (503) 223-4245

jamesd@techbook.com (James Deibele) writes:

>A lot of this wealth is purposely undervalued to avoid higher taxes on 
>it.  It's similar to Tektronix carrying a big chunk of Beaverton on their
>corporate books at 20-year-old values, which is what I've heard they've 
>done.  Might explain some of the interest in Tek --- close it down and 
>turn it into a condo park.  :-)

I think you would find that "book value" of any property (real or other)
must, by tax law, be carried based on its original acquisition cost. This
is not usually a good thing for businesses, since older assets, as you
mention, tend to be badly undervalued. The business *looses* the difference
of asset value between book and actual when making its balance sheet. This
is hardly a benefit to the business, since it may diminish both equity and
non-equity funding available to operate.

Because property taxes are paid on real property based on current valuation
(not on company book value), it is difficult to understand how you think
this results in a tax benefit of any kind. When the property is finally
sold, any capital gain (sales price less costs and basis value) is cur-
rently taxed as ordinary income -- like your paycheck. It is difficult to
imagine how you see this as a tax benefit.

Or are you just engaging in poetry? :-)

>to have a place at the table.  Prosperity looked inevitable.  We would
>have the "Great Society".

The only 60s people who really believed this were those smoking some-
thing weird, especially those legislating. There are many of us who
felt -- then and now -- that the 60's were a disaster leavened only by
some basic progress in civil rights.

Prosperity looked inevitable only to those limiting their gaze to only
then-recent past history.

When reality came to call -- in the 70's and thereafter -- there were few
surprises: Mr. Johnson should be marked down as one of the greatest crim-
inal minds of the current century, and we should not forget that he won
in a popular landslide, proving that the American people -- then as now --
will never abandon an underlying belief that The Big Rock Candy Mountain
is their just inheritance, and it is the duty of "gummint" leaders to 
deliver it, regardless of hazard to or neglect of the society at large.

>In the '70s and '80s, the economy slowed down and people started looking
>out for themselves first and foremost.  We're seeing the results of
>this selfishness in our streets and schools now, and nobody can be certain
>that the future will work out as we hope. [deleted]

There is a difference between "selfishness" and "self-interest". These
are easily confused by people who wish to believe that taxpayers should
gratefully fall into line for transfer of half their earnings to others
via the various and several taxes levied by various and several govern-
ments. Usually for purposes showing little measurable benefit to ordinary
citizen.

>To bring rambling back to the subject at hand: I'd argue that the two 
>kinds of rich are self-made and inherited.  While Sam Walton was
>entitled to everything he made, the billions his children received would
>pay for an awful lot of Head Start classes, classes that might keep

And I'm sure you have an idea to remedy this outrageous injustice. But
from just what source do you feel arises a "divine right of the non-
rich"? Or is this just more socialist poetry?

>children in school and out of prison.  At some point, I hope that the

Staying out of prison is a function of gaining the skills to hold a
real job. It is doubtful this is even possible in many public schools
for neighborhoods suffering high crime rates. Head Start will *not*
fix those schools. Nor will massive infusions of cash. The problem is
lack of measurement by and committment to defined standards, not lack
of funds (a fact easily demonstrated by comparison of per-pupil edu-
cation costs in this country vs. all other world competitors who now
routinely beat our shorts off).

You may wish to examine how taxpayers may feel about pissing down
the gutter a major and continuing volume of wealth to support a
slovenly, failing public education system, which is immune to any
real reform and whose solitary beneficiaries are its countless
employees.

>"divine right of the rich" goes the way of the "divine right of kings".

With any luck, the "divine right of those who breath the air" will bite
the dust first: a trend that is now well underway in most of the world,
except in those few remaining corners where ancient hippies and their
New Age inheritors continue to chant in mind-bound unison, substituting
blind, eternal hope in lieu of manifestly obvious fact.
-- 
________________________________________________________________
bud@mtek.com ... uunet!m2xenix!mtek!bud ... bud@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
MTEK International, Inc.             Throughput Technology Corp.
Throughput!