Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

It's not fair that he lives in a high tax state? He can fix that. I did.

I was just yankin' on your chain.

Now think about it. This is Winfield Hill with a prestigious career earning a good living, in a great area with many perks. Why would he leave such a great position for $10,000 or even $30,000 dollars. Him moving would would change his life in a negative way more then an addition of $30k would help in a positive way. You, apparently not.

Mikek

There's been a lot of that going around lately.

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win

Then he should stop bitching and pay his tribute to Caesar gladly.

Nope. Nothing in the NorthEast worth having, including the weather.

No.

Actually, 3 million more people voted not to do that, than did vote for it. And the majority that voted against it were in the highest-earning blue states.

As for those that did, if in fact that's what they voting for, voted to give themselves a 3-trillion dollar savings, by passing debt on to their children.

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win

No doubt we are adding this bill to future generations. The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes. I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done. We are in a bind now with Mandatory spending of $2.5 Trillion and only $1.3 Trillion of Discretionary spending.

Now that I'm 64yrs old, cut everything, But don't touch My SS! :-) Somewhat in jest, SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress. I'm thinking I won't started collecting until I'm 70yrs old, but still.

Mikek

s.

US military spending is unreasonably high.

It is spending as much on defense as the next seven countries down the peck ing order put together.

The prudent expenditure is as much as the as it's two closest rivals combin ed, and that would be China and Russia - Saudi Arabia isn't a rival.

Some commentators see US military spending as a sort of social security for the military industrial complex - as a sort of continuation and expansion of the original pork-barrel programs, which would explain why the US is sp ending a lot more than the people it might have to defend itself against.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

Then you are making too much money :-)

Sorry to say but why should taxpayers in well-run states subsidize other states that practice profligate spending? I never understood that sort of "logic" in pre-2017 tax laws.

I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost wanton spending (California).

--
Regards, Joerg 

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public 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 elected politicians reducing spending.

Well, one reason is that an interstate highway ought not to dead-end at a state border. I've seen that... it wasn't a welcome sight.

Another is the minor matter of definitions.

'Profligate spending' means 'spending'. 'Subsidize' means ' contribute to' or 'invest in' a common project.

Similarly, 'Cutthroat competition' means 'competition'.

Well, something will happen. We can't continue to pile on $1 tril deficits in years with a good economy. Another $2 tril has been added under Trump. The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be. Funny thing, all the alleged conservatives said deficits were a huge problem under Obama, but they are completely silent now.

in years with a good economy."

Well Obama scored $1.25 tril a year. What do you say about that ? Was that sustainable and this is not ? How ?

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.

Obama and the Congress had a very good reason for running $1 tril+ deficits for a few years, because of the economic calamity that the nation faced, that happened before Obama took office. The deficit was down to $580 bil in 2016, before Trump took over. Trump took over with a growing, normal economy, not an economy spiraling downhill. If you look at the charts of GFP, jobs, unemployment, there was a straight line improvement starting in 2009. There is no comparison. I'd say that running $580 bil a year deficit in 2016 was bad, but Trump doubling that is 2X worse. And why aren't the trumpets saying that? When is the last time you heard Trump mention the national debt or the deficit?

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.

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.

te:

:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

,

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

:

rote:

te:

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.

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?

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.

d is viewed with a critical eye for meaning.

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

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.

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.

. 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?

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.

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

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.