ROTFL! Got any more funnies? You earned that pension, dummy. The rich
didn't give it to you. The Republican run health insurance companies
wanted Obamacare so they could put their hands in your pockets. I paid
for that alternative care coverage and Bernie Sanders is pushing to make
such coverage available with the ACA. It will be a tough fight because
big pharma doesn't like you to know you might be able to cure an illness
with a common kitchen spice when they can sell you a pill that costs
them 5 cents to make for $100.
On 02/06/2014 09:39 AM, Mike Dixon wrote:
LOL! The *rich* gave me jobs with a nice pension and Republicans keep
your hands out of my pockets so I don't have to pay for your
*alternative* healthcare.
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:19 AM, Bhairitu
<[email protected]> wrote:
And hence there is no way out other than for the US to collapse. The
question is will the those who pull the strings in Washington want to
give the country a massive suicide pill if they are going down?
Remember most of them are psychopaths.
On 02/05/2014 11:53 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
How much do you propose the tax should be, and how long must the tax
operate to pay off the debt? It is much more complicated than this.
Among other things, it would reduce the income of people who rely on
pensions, and that would reduce tax income in other areas. It would
have unexpected ripple effects. If we assume that half of the U.S.
population actually has assets that could be taxed, it would take
approximately $107,000 per person to pay off the debt. The
International Monetary Fund estimates that if every $100 traded on
derivatives, stocks, and bonds were taxed $0.50 it would raise
approximately $200,000,000,000 a year, and that would pay down the
current US debt in 85 years. However the US unfunded obligations are
currently at $92,300,000,000,000 which would take 461 years to pay
off. Meanwhile debt will still be amassing, so in 461 years, it still
will not be paid off. The other thing is when investments are taxed
at a higher rate, the return on small, short trades is less and so
there are fewer trades and reduced tax income as a result.
The U.S. has to find a way to reduce those obligations because there
is no way taxation is going to to be able to pay all these
obligations off. It will have to restructure entitlements and reduce
spending, or at some point the system may collapse spontaneously in
which case everyone will be in the soup. Taxing the very wealthy more
would of course help, but even if taxed at 100%, which is of course
unrealistic, the rich cannot provide enough income to pay this down.
The whole system is just near the point of no return.
If the U.S. government prints more money (which it is doing now), it
results in higher inflation, if gone to excess, and that acts as a
tax on everyone through devaluation of currency. If currency is
devalued investors begin to sell out, and then it becomes harder for
the government to sell securities based on that currency, so interest
rates rise to make the securities more attractive. There are a lot of
vicious circles here that interact in unexpected ways.
For example Social Security in the U.S. is based on life expectancy
data that is obsolete because people are living longer. The solution
is to raise the age of retirement. Already the goverment over the
last third of century has tinkered with inflation measures to
understate its impact so that payouts for programs that use inflation
adjustments will be less. In other words if you rely on Social
Security, you are getting relatively less each year in purchasing
power as a result.
The government is in a bind because at this point increasing taxation
can reduce tax income in many areas. It is a very complicated and
dangerous situation. Putting the problem off to the next generation
probably will no longer be a workable stopgap solution. Congress and
the President are basically in the pocket of Wall Street, so
expecting a solution from these bozos is only likely if there is a
looming catastrophe that forces them to think outside their self
interest (money, power, and re-election) and political ideals.
Breaking up the banks, etc., into smaller units might help in
reducing centralised control from a few large companies.
Simple solutions involving just one parameter of the financial system
probably will have many unintended effects.
---In [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>, mailto:noozguru@... wrote:
The US depends WAY TOO MUCH on the health of Wall Street. Time to tax
each transaction to pay off the national debt!
