Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:12:21 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is no actual trust fund. The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.

This odd way of doing things (SS issued intragovernmental debt/securities) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be within the taxing power of Congress.


Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's sadly another internet lie.  There is a trust fund, as created
in the 30s.  It's invested in US treasuries.  And we know there is a
trust fund, because it's being used right now to pay benefits.  At the
current rate, it will be exhausted in 15 years.




The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


If the trust fund is non-existent or worthless, then so is every other
treasury security.  You know, those securities that are held by investors,
pension funds, govts, individuals the world over and that trade in the
market every day.  The fact that they are trading at interest rates of 3%,
not only says that they are not worthless, but that they are considered
among the safest investments in the world.


Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 9:20:20 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
te:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
blic choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the  
17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as electe
d politicians reducing spending.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

As a legalism, you're correct, the "trust fund" exists. This is a point Cap
tain Obvious also makes, so thanks for that. Everyone knows there is a pape
r (bookkeeping) exercise labeled "trust fund." As something that is critica
lly analyzed outside legal positivism (analyzing what the doublespeak means
 in practice), there is no trust fund in any meaningful way.

There is no "trust fund" unless the government writing an IOU to itself is  
considered a trust fund. Such a notion is logically nonsense, and never pra
cticed in the private world, but that sort of doublespeak is par for the co
urse. The government's selection of words does not impart a duty upon you t
o not look at it critically and understand it for what it is in reality.

They call it "insurance" too, but it certainly isn't insurance if the word  
is viewed with a critical eye for meaning.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
r right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket tak
en out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
es) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place
, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be withi
n the taxing power of Congress.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

This is utter nonsense. I specifically referred to intragovernmental debt.  
It is not so easy to "default" on other securities. In fact, there is a str
ong motivation for a government to not default on these other securities.

It is just like I said: the distinction is that they take the money out of  
your left pocket rather than your right. It goes in a different box on your
 W-2.  

Congress could write away the "trust fund" with the stroke of a pen, and ra
ise other taxes to pay SS benefits to net the same. That's how meaningful t
he distinction is. This is, in fact, what could happen by default once the  
"trust fund" (lol) runs out. That is, it could happen if the politicians de
cide they want to fulfill promised payments *and* they decide to do it in a
 way other than "SS taxes." After all, it is nothing more than a redistribu
tion program. Do you really care which pocket they tax you out of? You're p
aying regardless.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
,

Straw man---I said nothing of the kind.

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 1:47:31 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
rote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
te:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
s.
Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if th
e 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elec
ted politicians reducing spending.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
to
aptain Obvious also makes, so thanks for that. Everyone knows there is a pa
per (bookkeeping) exercise labeled "trust fund." As something that is criti
cally analyzed outside legal positivism (analyzing what the doublespeak mea
ns in practice), there is no trust fund in any meaningful way.

Of course there is, it's in US treasuries that are traded every day
and at 3% interest rates, showing investors have confidence in them.
Many private pension funds are also invested in US treasuries.  Are
they a fraud, non-existent too?



Quoted text here. Click to load it
s considered a trust fund. Such a notion is logically nonsense, and never p
racticed in the private world, but that sort of doublespeak is par for the  
course. The government's selection of words does not impart a duty upon you
 to not look at it critically and understand it for what it is in reality.

I understand it for what it is.  So do the markets the world over and their
judgment obviously does not equate with yours.  They actually own the
securities, in other words, investors the world over put their money where
their mouths are every day.




Quoted text here. Click to load it
d is viewed with a critical eye for meaning.  

It certainly is insurance.  If you're working, become disabled, it pays
benefits.




Quoted text here. Click to load it
our right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket t
aken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ties) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first pla
ce, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be wit
hin the taxing power of Congress.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
. It is not so easy to "default" on other securities. In fact, there is a s
trong motivation for a government to not default on these other securities.

Now, you're full of nonsense.  If the US defaulted on the securities in
the SS trust fund, it would be viewed by investors pretty much as it would  
a
default on any other treasury securities.  Are you going to tell us that
an entity can default on some of it's securities, without the holders of
the rest of the essentially identical securities not realizing what;s
happening, that the debtor is broke?




Quoted text here. Click to load it
f your left pocket rather than your right. It goes in a different box on yo
ur W-2.  

Which has nothing to do with the trust fund.  Sure, most of SS is being pai
d
from payroll taxes, but that is irrelevant.  



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Pure and utter nonsense for so many reasons that it's beyond stupid.



Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even 15 years from now, when the SS trust fund runs out, if nothing
is done between then and now, the current payroll taxes would be
sufficient to pay 80% of benefits.  Further, for your horror of horrors
to happen, the US would have to default on it's debt in the next 15 years.
Each year we get closer to 2034, that trust fund that you claim doesn't
exist, is being drawn down to pay SS benefits.  By 2034 it will be gone.
I hope you'll be happy then.

This is just right wing, kook website stuff, the same BS that's been
spewed since the 30s.







Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it


You are an idiot.

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:16:43 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The argument lost on the merits, the expected name calling begins.
You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust
fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade
in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher,
at a 3% interest rate.  Long before actual default, securities would
be trading like junk bonds.  The investors who actually buy US securities
say you're just full of BS.  And further, with each passing year, your
"issue" becomes smaller and will be gone in 15 years, when the trust fund
is gone, unless changes are made.

Nuff said.


Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:05:00 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Only an idiot would call them "identical securities" and make these repeate
d incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by invest
ors."  Only  an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was outed
 at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually b
uy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the differ
ence between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open market
.  

You are an idiot.



Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
ted incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by inve
stors."  Only  an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was out
ed at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually
 buy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the diff
erence between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open mark
et.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The argument having been further lost, the name calling intensifies.
The securities held in the trust are in fact, virtually identical to
the US securities held the world over. Both are backed by the full
faith and credit of the US govt.   Your argument is like saying
that Ford can default on one series of bonds because it can't  
pay those and it will not have a
direct effect on the rest of Ford's bonds.  Did you go to the Trump
school of economics?  A default on the treasury securities in the SS
trust would be seen by investors the world over as a default and all
US debt instruments would respond, with catastrophic results. Plus,
it would be no more tenable for the US govt to default on the SS
trust bonds than it would be to default on the bonds held by any
other institution, individuals,etc.   And again, what's the problem?
The trust just started being drawn down,
will be gone in 15 years.  You expect the US govt to default in the
next 15 years?   The debt markets obviously disagree and unlike you,
they actually own US debt securities.

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
Quoted text here. Click to load it
next 15 years?"

Actually I advocate sooner. They are already borrowing the interest.  

Thing is, IF we do it at the right time, let's say Trump's trade "action" a
ctually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to s
elf sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip, ha
rdly worth shit anywhere else.  

Internal trad would not change all that much. Imports prices would go throu
gh the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vulner
able. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world c
an affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.  

If we say, default in 2025 after a bunch of  more business is here and we i
mport less, the impact will not be as bad.  

Natural reaction of traders ? Well with the petrobuck dead we will have to  
sell our exports in gold and pay for imports in gold. After Germany we know
 they have nowhere near as much as they should, remember Germany ? Remember
 how the story about their gold was "debunked" ? Well it wasn't. Germany ST
ILL had to wait for their gold, but Venezuela get theirs right away. Even i
f they HAVE the gold, they blew their credibility - with the shipping sched
ule TO Germany with her gold. That is enough to turn people off.  

Remember about stocks, it is not so much what they'll do, it is more what p
eople THINK they're going to do. Add it all up, and they fact that those pe
ople KNOW our wars are fought for booty and bounty for the select few and m
ost of that big money never sees the US economy... They know because they s
tudy this shit and they got way better sources than even some governments.

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:54:05 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 actually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to
 self sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip,  
hardly worth shit anywhere else.  

Just like Trump, you conflate trade deficits with the federal deficit
and national debt.




Quoted text here. Click to load it
ough the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vuln
erable. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world
 can affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 import less, the impact will not be as bad.  


Please, you really can't be serious.  First, only you and Trump think
that somehow dramatically more business is going to be here by 2025.
Trump has had two years and all he's produced so far is a record
trade deficit last month with China.
Second, a default by the US would be a disaster for the world,
regardless of what business conditions are.  Did you go to the Trump
school of economics?





Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:26:06 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:
<Snip>
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That happens when people repeatedly make up straw men and go off on wild tangents. It is an accurate description.  

<Snip>

I put "default" in scare quotes for a reason: because it was not to be taken in the strict sense of the word.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You don't understand what you agreed to. I'm not interested in your hysterical straw men.  

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wouldn't argue that. They are equally worthless. Just a piece of paper. T
heir value is confidence in the issuing body. Government issued ones are SU
PPOSED to be more secure but the fact is we got Moody's starting to pull th
e plug on us and there are privately issued securities out there that are a
s secure as many governemnts.  

V at a 3% interest rate.  Long before actual default, securities would
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They usually pull in more interest IF they actually ever do anything. Now i
f you cam sell them before the shit hits their particular fan you can make  
out.  

And that is what US securities are going to look like if Moody's keeps up i
ts trend of lowering our rating. Now think of paying higher interest on $15
 or $20 trillion worth of those.  

However some government bonds etc. come with a little agreement, that they  
can prevent you from cashing them in and have no choice but to let them rol
l over. Germany pulled that one a few years ago. Germany ! The conceivers o
f the EU had to do a sorta semi-default ? The economic vertebrae of Europe  
? The hell you say...But they did. I doubt many privately issued securities
 have that little "glitch" in them.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

They sell securities on trust funds ? New one on me but then I am not any b
ig expert on it. Actually if I want to gamble all my money away I'll just s
tart a high stakes poker game.  

I know a bit about how economics works, I know more about how poker works.  
I can play poker but not economics.  

If I really had to invest like millions I would use a pro, one of those com
panies that has a recommended portfolio and all that based on your age, the
 cost of the habits to which you have become accustomed etc. But I have nob
ody to whom to leave it when I croak. That will be the day when I cannot wo
rk anymore, it'll be me, sleeping pills and whiskey. I'm not using a gun, i
n fact I gotta figure out who to leave those to, they guys who sold them to
 me ? I got a really good deal. The family doesn't like guns. Well maybe so
me of my cousins but most of them have more money than I.  

And then the electronics equipment. Maybe a bunch of it to a school, most o
f the Tek stuff I know who wants that.  

But if I had a portfolio, with no heirs, what to do ?

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

 You could divide it up among s.e.d. members.


--  
 Thanks,
    - Win

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 8:38:39 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
,

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I did not mak
e.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just to make a point, I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal
 commitment to redistributing money to 'older people." The word /worthless/
 was a result of "tra...'s" imagination.  

What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that  
I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or l
eft pocket. If $100 comes out of either of my pockets, for example, my net  
is -$100, regardless of the pocket.  

"tra..." even admitted taxpayers are currently paying the "trust fund" down
 by exactly these "other taxes."  This is admitting that the "trust fund" i
s an IOU the government wrote itself, and the burden is thus on the taxpaye
rs, regardless of the box in our W-2s.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a
 government to not default on securities put on open market.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. It is part of "tra...'s" straw man.

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
Quoted text here. Click to load it

ake. "

and  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
tributing money to 'older people."

I never saw that either.  

My point though is that paper is inherently worthless. It is the thoughts a
nd beliefs of the People which give it value.  

If I write you an IOU for a couple grand, and I have done this before and p
aid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off t
he bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last half
 dozen regimes in the US.  

And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close.  
Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growin
g population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. Wel
l we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-wor
kers. Trump did not do this.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
t I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or
 left pocket."

Absolutely agreed.  

Quoted text here. Click to load it
 a government to not default on securities put on open market."

Mainly for the politicians who don't want to be in power when it happens. T
here are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something j
ust to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. Tha
t makes it their fault, not his.  

So they don't sell like bonds n shit on trust funds, well I didn't think th
ey did so I guess I was right.  

I can take Keynes the fuck apart, interested ?

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 4:27:48 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 make. "
Quoted text here. Click to load it
istributing money to 'older people."
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thank you.




 and beliefs of the People which give it value.  

This is just silly.  That's true of just about anything.  Following that,
all bonds are worthless because they are paper. So too are all stocks.



Quoted text here. Click to load it
 paid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off
 the bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last ha
lf dozen regimes in the US.  

If you mean that because of the last half dozen presidents US securities
have no value, that's obviously not true.  US securities are traded every
day around the world as among the safest in the world.  The markets are
where people actually put their money behind their opinions.




Quoted text here. Click to load it
. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a grow
ing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. W
ell we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-w
orkers. Trump did not do this.  

Where did anyone say that Trump did something?  SS isn't a Ponzi scheme.
Sure, you are correct, there are less workers today for each retiree.
But we've faced this problem before and it's been fixed by a combination
of increasing taxes, raising retirement age, taxing benefits, etc.
It will be fixed again.  Which does get us back to Trump.  He's supposed
to be the great leader, the guy with all the answers.  Where is he on this?
Hello?  He'd rather be tweeting about Notre Dame being on fire or insulting
someone again.




Quoted text here. Click to load it
hat I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right  
or left pocket."
Quoted text here. Click to load it
or a government to not default on securities put on open market."
Quoted text here. Click to load it
 There are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something
 just to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. T
hat makes it their fault, not his.  

Obsessed with Trump?  How did Trump get in here?  But since you persist
and say Trump has no responsibility for the govt potentially going broke,
what about what Trump did?   Trump significantly increased govt spending
and cut taxes!  The deficit was $580 bil in 2016, it's $1 tril this year!
That's the first $1 tril deficit since the years right after 2008.
When is the last time Trump said the words deficit or national debt?

Oh, and the genius, when he was running, suggested that the US could negoti
ate
with our creditors to pay less than full value on our debts.  Then he said,
if not, we can just borrow more and default.   He even said that if interes
t
rates RISE, we can then refinance the national debt!  That last part helps
explain why his casinos went bankrupt.  Even a homeowner with a mortgage
knows that you don't refinance when rates go up.  Thankfully Trump hasn't
seen fit to expand on similar thoughts with his crazy tweets, but there
is still plenty of time for that.




Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:27:48 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's always been pay-go. Put another way, the "trust fund" is a bookkeeping trick.


Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:31:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't understand how pay-go, whatever that is, makes it a  
bookkeeping trick.  Sure, the money coming in has been paying
the benefits going out.  But that's how health insurance,
auto insurance, life insurance and  
similar works too.  It was never presented as anything other
than that. It's always been known that the workers and employers
were paying taxes to pay for the benefits going out. The excess
of what comes in over what gets paid
out went into US treasury securities which are virtually
identical to the other treasuries that trade in the open markets
every day and are valued as among the safest investments in the
world.  

Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 11:03:57 AM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No kidding. And I'm betting that state of affairs will be more stable than US Securities on the open market.


Re: Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault
On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:49:56 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it


I see, don't address the points I raised where I politely
addressed your points, edit the whole thing out, make a
snide insult and then move on to imply that US securities
that are traded every day worldwide are not stable.  Nice,
and wrong of course.  

Site Timeline