PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul Budget



ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 09:46 AM
Fellow democrats. Before you start thinking that this Rand Paul guy makes a lot of sense, look at what he advocates for if he was in charge. And this is just the beginning.


1. Privatizes Social Security and Medicare: Paul’s budget would raise the Social Security eligibility age and gives workers the option of private accounts, an idea that would demolish workers’ savings during economic downturns. An October 2008 retiree, for instance, would have lost $26,000 in a private Social Security account during the Great Recession, according to one study. Paul’s plan would also privatize Medicare, going a step farther than even Paul Ryan’s House Republican budget did and driving up the cost of health care for seniors even more.

2. Institutes a flat tax: Paul would replace the current progressive tax system with a flat tax rate, effectively providing the wealthiest Americans with a massive tax cut while raising taxes on many middle- and lower-class families. This is a feature of all flat tax plans, and Paul’s would cut the tax rate paid by more than half, slicing it from 35 percent to just 17 percent.

3. Eliminates investment taxes: Paul’s plan finds a way to grant the wealthy an even bigger tax cut by also eliminating all taxes on capital gains, dividends, and other investment income. Republicans like Paul are convinced that cutting capital gains tax rates boosts economic growth; however, evidence does not support that notion. Instead, studies have found that low tax rates on investment income are the biggest driver of growing American income inequality.

4. Abolishes the Dept. of Education: Paul would eliminate in total the departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development, ideas conservatives have long pushed. The Department of Education alone manages federal student loan programs, funding for low-income schools, programs to help special needs students, and many other services. Eliminating it, to say nothing of the other agencies, would risk that “poor, special education and minority students would be underserved by public schools even more than they already are.”

5. Cuts Medicaid and the safety net: Paul would block grant funding for Medicaid, food stamps, the children’s health insurance program, and other nutrition assistance programs, essentially gutting America’s social safety net. While Republicans — including Paul Ryan — love the idea of leaving such programs to the states, the reality is that such reforms leave the programs more susceptible to budget cuts. The 1996 welfare reform law block granted that program, which has done nothing but fail to help families in need since.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/25/1771561/the-5-worst-things-about-rand-pauls-budget-proposal/

Gerarddm
04-14-2015, 09:50 AM
About the only thing I can agree with Rand Paul about is having a humbler foreign policy and not being so militarily adventuresome overseas.

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 09:51 AM
About the only thing I can agree with Rand Paul about is having a humbler foreign policy and not being so militarily adventuresome overseas.

Which is actually a more traditional approach held by democrats. :)

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 10:01 AM
Oh boy - just what we need, an enormous transfer of wealth to the rich from everybody else.

Republicans whine and Republicans b!tch,
The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 10:10 AM
If he is elected the country would look significantly different. Here's more,


National Institutes of Health is cut by 20 percent ("much of the research and development undertaken by the NIH provides direct subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry").

Food and Drug Administration is cut by 20 percent ("new FDA powers granted by the recent Food Safety Modernization Act grant the government further intrusion into the nation’s food supply").

NASA is cut by 25 percent ("with the presence of private industries involved in space exploration and space tourism, it is time for NASA to look at ways to reduce spending … since President Obama has determined to realign the goals of NASA away from human space exploration to science and 'global warming' research, there is also a need to realign the agency’s funding").

US Geological Survey is cut by 20 percent ("though these are important activities, they can be given to state researchers at our colleges and universities").

Bureau of Reclamation is eliminated ("owning a majority block of energy and water resources is not the business of the federal government").

Bureau of Indian Affairs is eliminated ("swindled and mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian trust funds").

National Parks are cut by 30 percent ("returning these public lands back to the states and or the private sector would allow an increase in quality, safety and a reduction in government spending each year").

Indian Health Services is cut by 20 percent ("notoriously wrought with fraud").

Government Printing Office is eliminated ("every government office and agency should budget for their own printing costs").

http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/09/the-seriousness-of-rand-pauls-budget

ahp
04-14-2015, 10:16 AM
I know I should have started a business selling guillotine kits.

RonW
04-14-2015, 10:29 AM
Here do your own research instead of relying on others to tell you what to think........


A Clear Vision to Revitalize America
By Senator Rand Paul
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget of the United States Government


http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/MASTERBUDGET.pdf

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 10:39 AM
Yep start on page 53 and read to page 60 or so, and you will see a gigantic transfer of wealth from everybody else to the rich. He wants to institute a flat income tax, not tax interest or capital gains as individual income (the old 'double taxation bullsh!t), and eliminate all estate taxes. It's a billionaire's fantasy.

Republicans whine and Republicans b!tch,
The rich are too poor and the poor are too rich.

RonW
04-14-2015, 10:51 AM
Yep start on page 53 and read to page 60 or so, and you will see a gigantic transfer of wealth from everybody else to the rich. He wants to institute a flat income tax, not tax interest or capital gains as individual income (the old 'double taxation bullsh!t), and eliminate all estate taxes. It's a billionaire's fantasy.


The old worn out and incorrect liberal argument of a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich..

A new tax system is on it's way. The present tax system is filled with loop holes and tax credits to those who don't need them (corps) and is used for political bribery.
The poor should not be taxed, I thought the liberals wanted loop holes closed .

Why do you think so many corps are moving abroad ? Hint, the tax system is part of it. Some of the flat tax proposals have as much as a standard deduction of $100,000...
No tax on the first $100k would go a long way in helping future generations to be prepared for retirement.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 10:59 AM
. . the old worn out and incorrect liberal argument of a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich..Worn because its been used so many times, but 100% correct. I obviously haven't had time to do the numbers in detail, but soon enough there will be a sober accurate analysis of Mr. Paul's proposal (without magic asterisks) showing how much less progressive it will make the income tax. Libertarians and conservatives always talk about eliminating loopholes, simplification, and reform, but at the end of the day, the rich pay much less under their proposals; it's as inevitable as sunrise. One begins to suspect that it's not a bug, but a feature - or perhaps the entire point of the exercise. Reform and simplification would be great - but not at the expense of making an bad inequality problem still worse.

switters
04-14-2015, 11:03 AM
is there a way to compare the OP to Candidate Clinton's proposed budget ideas?

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 11:21 AM
I'm sure there is. A good start would be to compare Mr. Paul's proposal to the current budget and tax system, since I'm sure Ms. Clinton's will be nowhere near so radical. Your mission, should you decide to accept it . . . .

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 11:26 AM
Just the privatizing of SS and implementing vouchers for medicare should scare the beejebus out of people.

RonW
04-14-2015, 11:31 AM
Just the privatizing of SS and implementing vouchers for medicare should scare the beejebus out of people.

If the average 60 year old today was able to put just 1/4 of what they paid in to social security over the past 40 years in the stock market as a investment, they would be multi- millionaires today and would scoff at social security payments..

switters
04-14-2015, 11:37 AM
I'm sure there is. A good start would be to compare Mr. Paul's proposal to the current budget and tax system, since I'm sure Ms. Clinton's will be nowhere near so radical. Your mission, should you decide to accept it . . . .

I started my mission before posting, not much is known about her budget views and nothing is out there in the detail that Rand has made public. Mr. Rand's views are pretty radical and not very practical, on the other hand Candidate Clinton may have some equally extreme views about redistribution. Or not, I was hoping the faithful may have been using their secret decoder rings to tell the rest of us what the specifics of her platform may be. So far I just hear it has to be better than the red teams, because, red team.

here is what we can guess so far, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-13/this-report-has-the-most-clues-to-hillary-clinton-s-economic-plan

I'm fascinated by how she is going to keep on with the trade deals that export union type jobs and make unions stronger at the same time. Granted that is better than eliminating the department of education, but I am hoping for something a little better than mediocrity.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 11:48 AM
on the other hand Candidate Clinton may have some equally extreme views about redistribution. Or not . . . Or not. I could wish, but don't bet on it.


So far I just hear it has to be better than the red teams, because, red team.Excuse me? Mr. Paul proposes privatization of Medicare and Social Security, a flat income tax, eliminating income tax on capital gains and interest, and eliminating the estate tax entirely. We bring this up, and you interpret it as "because - red team"?? Have you actually been reading? Have you looked at Mr. Paul's budget?

Michael D. Storey
04-14-2015, 11:52 AM
Regards the first plank in the platform mentioned in the opening salvo:
A 2008 retiree most likely would not take all of their account and liquify it in the first year. Most of the loss would be paper. Beside, if they were that close to retirement, I reckon that they would have moved to conservative, fixed NAV investment vehicles, thereby shielding their account. The only thing that would stand in the way of doing that is sloth or greed.

RonW
04-14-2015, 11:54 AM
switters -
I started my mission before posting, not much is known about her budget views and nothing is out there in the detail that Rand has made public. Mr. Rand's views are pretty radical and not very practical, on the other hand Candidate Clinton may have some equally extreme views about redistribution. Or not, I was hoping the faithful may have been using their secret decoder rings to tell the rest of us what the specifics of her platform may be. So far I just hear it has to be better than the red teams, because, red team.


Honestly I wished more people would think like this, the american people have been laxed for a long time on actual policies and then holding the politicians accountable for their actions or lack of, and is exactly how and why we are in the mess we are in..

It is time, and with the internet to easily bring forth the actual views of or lack of views of for these politicians instead of cheering for your team.

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 12:29 PM
If the average 60 year old today was able to put just 1/4 of what they paid in to social security over the past 40 years in the stock market as a investment, they would be multi- millionaires today and would scoff at social security payments..

I lost over 100K in my civil service retirement investment when the stock market took a dive at the end of 2007. I'm pretty sure there were others who lost much more.

I'm thankful Bush jr. was not able to get this done otherwise I probably wouldn't have my SS today.

So I would so given your scenario that "average 60 year old" could have lost it all.

David G
04-14-2015, 12:52 PM
The only question that is germane, at this point in our history, is: do this person's policies begin to/help to reverse the over-swing our economy has been subjected to toward the laissez-faire end of the economic spectrum? If they do... I'll support them. If they do not... I'll oppose them. Rand Paul's most emphatically do not.


From Ian's February 2008 thread. I would say we're long overdue for the correction suggested --

Mr. McColgin,

I've come late to this thread, but I have to say I think you have touched on the core phenomenon. One of the long term patterns inherent in our system of market capitalism (combined with democratic elections) is an ongoing pendulum swing between the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism on one hand, and Scandinavian-style "market socialism" on the other.

Full disclosure: I'm non-doctrinaire, but tend to lean toward the progressive side. However, my undergraduate work was in economics w/graduate work in economic history & economic development.

To elaborate: market capitalism is a very efficient system for fostering innovation, accumulating capital, and developing economies. This powerful engine is driven by a particular side of human nature: the ceaseless dynamo of human need and human greed. Don't think I'm condemning. I'm not. For the most part market capitalism does a great job of channeling this drive into productive avenues.

However, it is also true that - left unchecked - market capitalism has some built-in destructive tendencies. Historically, the continued accrual of more & more capital & power into fewer & fewer hands has led to an inefficient funtioning of the economy. More speculative bubbles. More oscillations. Eventual instability. One example is the Great Depression. Hoover was an absolute True Believer in the notion that "The business of America is business". He thought the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer was good for the country. He was not the only one. The process began before him. He was just the Final Fool before the fall in that particular episode of the drama.

What followed the Great Depression was a rapid swing of the pendulum to the far end of the spectrum. Roosevelt instituted Social Security; Unemployment Insurance; WPA programs; and a bevy of other programs which were the antithesis of Hoover's approach. Socialism, all of it. Don't think I'm condemning. It worked, and it has a place in our society. We are a far more stable economy now - with these programs in place - than we were before.

I could go on and on with the variations, ramifications, and permutations of the pattern. Also about the dangers if the pendulum swings too far (we're close right now) toward laissez-faire (think Weimar Germany and Adolph Hitler). Instead, I'll sum up by saying it is not - as Keith so wisely notes - a case of "us vs. them". It is a case of recognizing where we are in the pendulum swing, and accepting whatever corrections are in order... even if that leads away from your particular ideological island.

Right now, as I mentioned, we've swung a good long way toward unchecked capitalism. It's time for a correction. Conservatives should not howl at the prospect. They should welcome it as a normal, desirable, adjustment (think "market correction" if it makes you feel better). Liberals should not think that the answer is to swing to the other end of the spectrum and stay there. That place has its own problems, dangers, and inefficiencies.

So - it's time for all of us (you too Milo<g>) to embrace a bit of "socialism" and step back a bit from the dog-eat-dog wing of capitalism. We will possibly over-correct (this system is a positive feedback loop, and they have that tendency). Then it will be time for all of us to embrace a little more market control. "To everything, Turn turn turn, There is a season, Turn turn turn..."

I hope this rant has been useful to someone, and not simply a bit of blather that only an economist could put up with.


"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

hokiefan
04-14-2015, 01:20 PM
If the average 60 year old today was able to put just 1/4 of what they paid in to social security over the past 40 years in the stock market as a investment, they would be multi- millionaires today and would scoff at social security payments..

That is hogwash. My 401k contribution is almost exactly equal to my social security tax. I have made that same percentage based contribution since I started working. I just did the quick math over my salary history (pretty decent, but not extravagant) and it is not close to multi-millionaire status, even with company match and an assumed 7% return from the market. 1/4 of that does not begin to generate multi-millionaire savings. Not even close. Someone failed at math.

Bobby

RonW
04-14-2015, 01:29 PM
David G.
The only question that is germane, at this point in our history, is: do this person's policies begin to/help to reverse the over-swing our economy has been subjected to toward the laissez-faire end of the economic spectrum? If they do... I'll support them. If they do not... I'll oppose them. Rand Paul's most emphatically do not.

Obviously you have concluded that our markets have developed too high of highs and too lows of lows. But the real question might be why, and I don't see Iam's statement as correct. I said the markets are too drastic in swings 35 years ago.

The great depression was caused by a basic problem of too much money and credit in the markets from 1913 till the crash which was caused by the retraction of the credit markets and monetary supply, and who did this ? None other then the federal reserve, well documented history if you do your research.

And the stock market crash was also caused by credit markets of which you could buy stock with only 10% down, which was fine as long as things are going up, but once you have a natural down turn, it all snowballs with only 10% down.

You might want to actually read what the Paul's, Rand and Ron's discussion actually is on economics and the influence of the federal reserve actually is.
Currently we are paying $500 billion a year on interest on the national debt, that money could be used in a lot of other places.

RonW
04-14-2015, 01:37 PM
That is hogwash. My 401k contribution is almost exactly equal to my social security tax. I have made that same percentage based contribution since I started working. I just did the quick math over my salary history (pretty decent, but not extravagant) and it is not close to multi-millionaire status, even with company match and an assumed 7% return from the market. 1/4 of that does not begin to generate multi-millionaire savings. Not even close. Someone failed at math.

Bobby

Hog wash huhh.....how about one simple example, if in 1979 you bought 1,000 shares of P&G that only sold for $2. a share and cost you only $2,000. which is about the same amount of social security tax you would have paid on a income of (at that time ) $35k , that stock split since then 5 times and would be worth over $3 million dollars today not counting the dividend payments which would put it well past $4 million at least........And if you only made half that amount it would take only 2 years of your social security payment to be invested for you to be a millionaire today....sorry to hear you lost out.........
And you could do the same with microsoft, mcdonalds, google, and the list goes on and on........

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 01:43 PM
Sure. And you could have bought KMart, or Polaroid. Picking one stock that with the benefit of hindsight you know did well is utterly dishonest. Nobody can consistently beat the market; 100 million people certainly can't. Putting all that Social Security money into the stock market has been the fantasy of the ruling classes for 50 years.

slug
04-14-2015, 01:44 PM
Dont know anything about privatising Social security....sounds bad. A better proposal is to means test the benifits.

Anyone with sufficient retirement income or savings should be excluded from collecting benifits.

Social security should only be a safty net, not a pension.

hokiefan
04-14-2015, 01:44 PM
Hog wash huhh.....how about one simple example, if in 1979 you bought 1,000 shares of P&G that only sold for $2. a share and cost you only $2,000. which is about the same amount of social security tax you would have paid on a income of (at that time ) $35k , that stock split since then 5 times and would be worth over $3 million dollars today not counting the dividend payments which would put it well past $4 million at least........And if you only made half that amount it would take only 2 years of your social security payment to be invested for you to be a millionaire today....sorry to hear you lost out.........
And you could do the same with microsoft, mcdonalds, google, and the list goes on and on........

That is NOT the average 60 year old. That is the cherry picked lucky person. On average, people don't beat the market. So you're still spouting hogwash...

slug
04-14-2015, 01:48 PM
Sure. And you could have bought KMart, or Polaroid. Picking one stock that with the benefit of hindsight you know did well is utterly dishonest. Nobody can consistently beat the market; 100 million people certainly can't. Putting all that Social Security money into the stock market has been the fantasy of the ruling classes for 50 years.


Stock market returns during your lifetime have been more than sufficient to turn modest investments into good retirement income.

if interest rates go negative or stay low for a long time it will be impossible to pay out benifits.

this looks like the present scenario...social security reform is a critical issue for the next election.

Captain Intrepid
04-14-2015, 01:54 PM
Hog wash huhh.....how about one simple example, if in 1979 you bought 1,000 shares of P&G that only sold for $2. a share and cost you only $2,000. which is about the same amount of social security tax you would have paid on a income of (at that time ) $35k , that stock split since then 5 times and would be worth over $3 million dollars today not counting the dividend payments which would put it well past $4 million at least........And if you only made half that amount it would take only 2 years of your social security payment to be invested for you to be a millionaire today....sorry to hear you lost out.........
And you could do the same with microsoft, mcdonalds, google, and the list goes on and on........

Sure is easy to invest retroactively when you already know how each stock has performed.

You could have easily put $2000 into KODAK, a very solid company back in 1979...

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 01:54 PM
Social Security has a demographic problem; more old people, fewer young people, but very modest tax increases, and/or an increase in the cap for wages taxed will take care of it for the foreseeable future. Not a big deal; if someone tells you there's a crisis they're trying to sell you something. Medicaid OTOH has a real problem, but that's mainly a result of anomalous US health care costs and truly exorbitant spending at the very end of life.

slug
04-14-2015, 01:58 PM
The problem with social secruity is that too many people use it. This is unfortunate. The only way to save social security is to remove many people from recieving benifits.

i believe this is the current Republican mainstream proposal.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 02:03 PM
That's almost 100% pure nonsense.

slug
04-14-2015, 02:04 PM
You talking to me or are you talking to yourself ?

Sky Blue
04-14-2015, 02:07 PM
Slug is correct. In fact, there are tens of millions of working age persons currently receiving de facto social security in the form of food stamps, welfare payments and myriad other forms of aid. It isn't just old age pensions anymore.

There are two solutions. Make SS means tested or cut benefits for all in order that the gravy train of free stuff may continue. A majority of those who played by the rules and paid into the system for decades are unlikely to go along with a means-tested arrangement, especially if they are working or lower middle class. The growing entitlement state is not sustainable and many sense it. Those who would disagree ought to look at the challenges faced by Europe in this respect.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 02:11 PM
The problem with Social Security is that over the long term, there is less money coming in than is going out.

There are multiple ways to fix it; the most obvious are either to increase the amount coming in, reduce the amount paid out, or some combination. There are multiple ways to do either of these. Raising Social Security taxes by about 2% will make it sustainable over the long term at the current level of benefits. " The only way is to . . ." is simply false. You may think it's the best way, but that's not the same thing at all.

Norman Bernstein
04-14-2015, 02:13 PM
The problem with social secruity is that too many people use it. This is unfortunate. The only way to save social security is to remove many people from recieving benifits.


You can't do that. People who pay into the system are entitled to the benefits.

However, all of this talk about Social Security and its impending doom is nothing more than pure partisan politics.... since Social Security is far and away the EASIEST national problem to solve. We could easily preserve Social Security into perpetuity with a combination of some very small, incremental changes: a slight increase in the retirement age, a slight reduction in the amount the benefit rises, per year, for people who work until age 70, a slight, and graduated, means test for very wealthy retirees, and a small increase in the SS tax.... none of these individual changes need be drastic or large, just some small changes which would eliminate the demographic problem that SS suffers from.

In fact, one economist made an incredibly simple suggestion, after analyzing the economic data. What he said was this: if all we did was to raise the nominal retirement age, by just one month, each year, for the next 12 years, the problem would be completely solved, and SS would be solvent into the foreseeable future.

The problem isn't a lack of simple solutions, none of which would have any dramatic effect on anyone.....

...the problem is ideology. Conservatives have hated Social Security since it began in the 1930's, as a matter of economic philosophy.... therefore, no practical solution is acceptable to them, if it means preserving the system.

It's no wonder that we hear these silly, absurd claims about how everyone should jut invest in the stock market, instead of SS, and they'd all be millionaires. Silly, silly tripe.

slug
04-14-2015, 02:14 PM
Yes indeed. i believe the cutoff is propsed at 70 to 90 k per year retirement income. I read the article very fast so make have number wrong .

This would imply a 1.5 milion dolar pension.

I belive 20 or more percent of americans will have a pension of this size at retirement. These citizens , the top 20 percent , should be cut out of Social security and live on their personal pension and saving only.

slug
04-14-2015, 02:15 PM
wall Street Journal.

its coming and it is a logical solution to the problem.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/christie-to-call-for-raising-age-for-social-security-cutting-benefit-for-some-seniors-1429018212

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 02:43 PM
Dont know anything about privatising Social security....sounds bad. A better proposal is to means test the benifits.

Anyone with sufficient retirement income or savings should be excluded from collecting benifits.

Social security should only be a safty net, not a pension.

I think an even better idea is to either raise or remove the $118,500 income cap.

RonW
04-14-2015, 02:50 PM
I think an even better idea is to either raise or remove the $118,500 income cap.

I am all for that, raise it to 1/2 million even a million or maybe 5 million, then put a means test on it so that no one with a net worth of more then maybe 5 million could draw anything........now that would be a real social program, and might fly if we had a reasonable flat tax system that was fair......so you never exceeded 1/3 in taxation...

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 03:04 PM
I am all for that, raise it to 1/2 million even a million or maybe 5 million, then put a means test on it so that no one with a net worth of more then maybe 5 million could draw anything........now that would be a real social program,I'd support that. I'd have to look at the numbers first to see exactly how it would work out, but it doesn't sound unreasonable. It is, of course, completely unlike what Rand Paul's proposing.


. . . if we had a reasonable flat tax system . . . .Ron, you sure are fond of giving rich folks bucketloads of money.

Captain Intrepid
04-14-2015, 03:05 PM
I am all for that, raise it to 1/2 million even a million or maybe 5 million, then put a means test on it so that no one with a net worth of more then maybe 5 million could draw anything........now that would be a real social program, and might fly if we had a reasonable flat tax system that was fair......so you never exceeded 1/3 in taxation...

An unmarried individual who makes $1 000 000 pays about 35% in federal income tax if they have absolutely zero deductions whatsoever. Hardly ruinous.

RonW
04-14-2015, 03:06 PM
Keith -
Ron, you sure are fond of giving rich folks bucketloads of money.

Keith you sure are fond of thinking you are entitled to others people's money.......




Now how am I giving the rich any money ?

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 03:08 PM
Keith -

Keith you sure are fond of thinking you are entitled to others people's money.......




Now how am I giving the rich any money ?

Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Rich folks get special tax breaks resulting in the poor and the middle class having to burden the load.

Todd D
04-14-2015, 03:12 PM
Hog wash huhh.....how about one simple example, if in 1979 you bought 1,000 shares of P&G that only sold for $2. a share and cost you only $2,000. which is about the same amount of social security tax you would have paid on a income of (at that time ) $35k , that stock split since then 5 times and would be worth over $3 million dollars today not counting the dividend payments which would put it well past $4 million at least........And if you only made half that amount it would take only 2 years of your social security payment to be invested for you to be a millionaire today....sorry to hear you lost out.........
And you could do the same with microsoft, mcdonalds, google, and the list goes on and on........

As usual magic numbers. I used Proctor and Gamble's own return calculator (http://www.pginvestor.com/trcalc.aspx?IID=4004124) to calculate the present value of a 1979 investment of $2,000. Assuming that dividends were reinvested, that calculator gave a present value of the investment of $65,169.40. If you put in $2,000 every year starting in 1979, your investment would be worth about $880,000 today. Still no where near your numbers. Using the Fidelity calculator the $65K would buy a 65 year old a two life annuity of $194 a month. Adjusted for splits, PG is now cheaper than it was in '79, again based on the PG web site.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 03:16 PM
LOL! Reality bites again. :d

RonW
04-14-2015, 03:17 PM
As usual magic numbers. I used Proctor and Gamble's own return calculator (http://www.pginvestor.com/trcalc.aspx?IID=4004124) to calculate the present value of a 1979 investment of $2,000. Assuming that dividends were reinvested, that calculator gave a present value of the investment of $65,169.40. Using the Fidelity calculator, that would buy a 65 year old a two life annuity of $194 a month. Adjusted for splits, PG is now cheaper than it was in '79, again based on the PG web site.

Well you are wrong because the stock has split 5 times, and that 1,000 shares would now be 32,000 shares at $83 a share.....not counting the compounding of dividends....

RonW
04-14-2015, 03:27 PM
Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Rich folks get special tax breaks resulting in the poor and the middle class having to burden the load.

So exactly who pays what ??


http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/xk/EE6I3Peu9SaPzfsTuiEsBNjN4w/www.powerlineblog.com/i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-10-at-3.21.30-PM.png,qresize=580,P2C416.pagespeed.ce.ApYC4v9FT6m parce0p-8.png


http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/xk/EE6I3Peu9SaPzfsTuiEsBNjN4w/www.powerlineblog.com/i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/04/Screen-Shot-2015-04-10-at-3.23.24-PM.png,qresize=580,P2C165.pagespeed.ce.HbHXjlhCFsO uqFTiM3zO.png

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/04/who-pays-federal-income-taxes.php

ccmanuals
04-14-2015, 03:31 PM
So you don't believe that income should be taxed fairly. That income earned through investment should be taxed at a lower rater than earned income? If you don't tax everyone fairly isn't that wealth distribution?

Keith Wilson
04-14-2015, 03:33 PM
INCOME TAX ONLY. God, that's probably the oldest example of lying with accurate numbers in the US politics. Income taxes are somewhat progressive. Most other taxes are regressive.

It varies some by state, but here's how it looks if you consider all taxes (2010 numbers for the first chart).


http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Share_of_income_paid_as_tax.gif

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/13/business/economy/shares.jpg

David G
04-14-2015, 03:34 PM
And... since Republicans keep coming up with chit like this... it's quite doubtful I'll be voting for any R's anytime soon. Exactly the opposite of what is needed --



WASHINGTON -- House Republicans this week will vote to hand the heirs and heiresses of America's largest fortunes a $269 billion tax break (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/50100-hr1105.pdf) by repealing the federal inheritance tax.

The legislation would shield the very richest families from taxes on the fortunes they inherit. After years of GOP attacks on the inheritance tax, also known as the estate tax, only a few thousand of the wealthiest families are subjected to it -- 4,700 total in 2013, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/JCT.pdf). Only individual fortunes worth over $5.43 million can be taxed under current law, an amount that doubles to $10.86 million for wealthy couples. The Republican proposal would eliminate all of these estates -- which are over 15,700 percent richer than the median American household (https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth%20Highlights%202011.pdf)-- from taxation.

Inheritance taxes are at the center of the policy debate over economic inequality. French economist Thomas Piketty has called for a global wealth tax (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/thomas-piketty-inequality_n_5159937.html) to combat widening economic inequality based on unearned wealth passed between generations. But the Republican bill scheduled for a vote this week would move in the exact opposite direction, eliminating even the limited taxes on family capital that the United States currently deploys.


"There has been a very aggressive lobbying campaign by some of the wealthiest families in the country for a couple of decades now," said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. "But this is more radical than other recent efforts."

No Democrats voted for the GOP bill (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hr1105.pdf), dubbed the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015, in committee. And the legislation wouldn't just eliminate the estate tax -- it would also allow heirs to escape the already-generous capital gains tax on any stocks and real estate they receive. The change would significantly alter the meaning of the capital gains tax, since capital gains taxes only hit the wealthy when they actually sell an asset. Moguls could keep their wealth in the stock market and pass it down from generation to generation without ever being taxed.

The result is an economic inequality double-whammy in which two of the most pro-rich elements of the tax code are further weakened, costing the federal government $269 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Half of all capital gains flow to the richest 0.1 percent of Americans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/capital-gains-tax-rates-benefiting-wealthy-are-protected-by-both-parties/2011/09/06/gIQAdJmSLK_story.html), and they are taxed at just 20 percent, well below the 39.6 percent rate for ordinary income. But the estate tax is even more regressive, applying to just 0.2 percent of estates a year, at an average effective rate of less than 17 percent (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2655), since millions of dollars of the inheritance are exempted from the formal 40 percent rate.

Federal inheritance taxes used to be broader. In the 1970s, according to the JCT, about 6 percent of all estates were subject to the estate tax. During the Great Depression, the rate on the estate tax was 70 percent. But the Republican campaign against it went into overdrive in the 1990s and hasn't let up, even in the Obama era.

Conservatives routinely make a moral argument against what they call "the death tax," saying it is unfair to tax a family just because one if its members has died.

Economists point out that shielding unearned inheritances from tax doesn't encourage any useful activity, and Democrats have typically opposed efforts to chip away at the estate tax. But they have allowed a host of Republican efforts to go through in broad bipartisan deals. In 1997, President Bill Clinton's budget secured child health care funding in exchange for a GOP item narrowing the estate tax to exclude a host of wealthy families. In late 2010 and again in the 2013 fiscal cliff deal, Democrats included generous inheritance tax measures into a bargain with Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/republicans-push-269-bill_n_7061458.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

David G
04-14-2015, 03:48 PM
And... since this seems to be the sort of behavior that R's exhibit in lieu of good governance, and an understanding of history... it's a bit hard to support them --

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/p235x350/11148552_10152883327181275_23846550794216494_n.jpg ?oh=cde44452fad092d7f20e75dc1d50fc0e&oe=55AB1D29&__gda__=1440987255_dc3532c1a3bea92d227fc420db21804 e

Todd D
04-14-2015, 05:35 PM
Nuts, this is painful. I owe RonW a partial apology. It seems that the Proctor and Gamble calculator I used to test his stock investment numbers doesn't include stock splits. What a worthless calculator. However, the $65500 result the calculator gave does reflect the number of shares $2,000 would have bought in 1979. Given today's price for PG (83.60) that $65,500 represents 783.5 shares in 1979. Those shares would have grown to 25072 shares today due to splits with a current value of about 2.1 million. That is still a lot less than Ron's $3M.

RonW
04-14-2015, 05:46 PM
Nuts, this is painful. I owe RonW a partial apology. It seems that the Proctor and Gamble calculator I used to test his stock investment numbers doesn't include stock splits. What a worthless calculator. However, the $65500 result the calculator gave does reflect the number of shares $2,000 would have bought in 1979. Given today's price for PG (83.60) that $65,500 represents 783.5 shares in 1979. Those shares would have grown to 25072 shares today due to splits with a current value of about 2.1 million. That is still a lot less than Ron's $3M.

That's fair enough, but remember my figures where based on 1,000 shares not 783 which would give you another 7,000 shares today worth over $600 K. today and you didn't figure in the dividend that would add a lot more shares over all those years..And before you ask, yes the stock bounced up and down and I believe in 1980 was actually $2....

Kinda beats the hell out of social security, doesn't it....

John Smith
04-14-2015, 05:51 PM
If the average 60 year old today was able to put just 1/4 of what they paid in to social security over the past 40 years in the stock market as a investment, they would be multi- millionaires today and would scoff at social security payments..

Tell that to Enron employees, or people who lost everything in '09.

Social Security GUARANTEES a specific return. Anything else is a gamble.

John Smith
04-14-2015, 05:53 PM
The problem with Social Security is that over the long term, there is less money coming in than is going out.

There are multiple ways to fix it; the most obvious are either to increase the amount coming in, reduce the amount paid out, or some combination. There are multiple ways to do either of these. Raising Social Security taxes by about 2% will make it sustainable over the long term at the current level of benefits. " The only way is to . . ." is simply false. You may think it's the best way, but that's not the same thing at all.

Raising wages would help!

RonW
04-14-2015, 06:07 PM
Tell that to Enron employees, or people who lost everything in '09.

Social Security GUARANTEES a specific return. Anything else is a gamble.

I guess nobody ever told you not to put all your eggs in one basket.

Michael D. Storey
04-14-2015, 07:06 PM
Sure. And you could have bought KMart, or Polaroid. Picking one stock that with the benefit of hindsight you know did well is utterly dishonest. Nobody can consistently beat the market; 100 million people certainly can't. Putting all that Social Security money into the stock market has been the fantasy of the ruling classes for 50 years.

Well, when I found my first wife trolling for men on aol back in the chat room days, I cashed in the life insurance and bought AOL stock, and sold it in a year and paid for my divorce. My one and only.

Captain Intrepid
04-14-2015, 07:30 PM
I guess nobody ever told you not to put all your eggs in one basket.

Which is why you cherry picking one stock with full hindsight shows that you're full of something more effectively used to fertilize cabbages.

RonW
04-14-2015, 07:36 PM
Which is why you cherry picking one stock with full hindsight shows that you're full of something more effectively used to fertilize cabbages.

That is just one example of many, surely you would diversify over the years.........Oh yea you can find that stuff in abundance throughout Canada...

Captain Intrepid
04-14-2015, 07:41 PM
That is just one example of many, surely you would diversify over the years.........Oh yea you can find that stuff in abundance throughout Canada...

You mean you would selectively invest in cherry picked stocks that vastly outperform the rest of the market? That must be why it's so easy to consistently make fortunes by investing in stock.

Thanks, it's what makes our cabbages so fantastic. We know where it deserves to go.

Michael D. Storey
04-15-2015, 12:31 PM
Tell that to Enron employees, or people who lost everything in '09.

Social Security GUARANTEES a specific return. Anything else is a gamble.
What caused those losses was greed. The investors were not allowed to diversify, or to even sell their holdings. But instead of being comfortable, they needed to get rich.
And, Big News Flash here. There are no GUARANTEES. None. Except death. If social security runs out of money, what happens then? Wanna fix it? Use the money to buy bonds to reinvigorate the infrastructure. And not just roads and bridges and that knee-jerk stuff. Build water and sewer plants. Invest in things that will charge a toll, or will have a revenue stream that will repay the bonds. Now, the main function of the social security fund is to bail out the federal deficit. Just increasing the return on investment by 1% would add 40 years to the life of the fund.
Guarantee indeed.

Michael D. Storey
04-15-2015, 12:43 PM
And about stock picking:
In 1955 my father died and his fifth son was born three months later. Our Mother took the war bonds that my older brother and I inherited from our grandfather, and two life insurance policies, and met a broker in Rochester, New York named Walter Schnable.
For the next 25 years, Walter pitched singles and doubles, no stolen bases, no home runs. Just steady money. In the end, we all went to college, Betsy paid the house off early, and lived until 2002, when my share was still enough to buy the House on the Shore.
Forget this high flyer nonsense. Buy what you can understand. Go with what you know. And do not buy with a timeline shorter than 5 years. Do not eat, or bet, the Seed Corn.
Like mutual funds? I prefer them. When the Boys were little, they would haul mowers and bikes and an occasional wheel chair home from the dump, clean em up and sell them at the consignment auction at the county fair grounds. Everything went into their mutuals. In the end, there was clearly not enough for tuition, but for books and the stray legal scrape for each of them at college, and Jesse last month used the remainder of his to make the down on his first house. Jake is using his for living expenses for a Masters Degree at University of Texas in Austin.
Forget the high flyers. Go with what you know.

slug
04-15-2015, 01:31 PM
And about stock picking:
In 1955 my father died and his fifth son was born three months later. Our Mother took the war bonds that my older brother and I inherited from our grandfather, and two life insurance policies, and met a broker in Rochester, New York named Walter Schnable.
For the next 25 years, Walter pitched singles and doubles, no stolen bases, no home runs. Just steady money. In the end, we all went to college, Betsy paid the house off early, and lived until 2002, when my share was still enough to buy the House on the Shore.
Forget this high flyer nonsense. Buy what you can understand. Go with what you know. And do not buy with a timeline shorter than 5 years. Do not eat, or bet, the Seed Corn.
Like mutual funds? I prefer them. When the Boys were little, they would haul mowers and bikes and an occasional wheel chair home from the dump, clean em up and sell them at the consignment auction at the county fair grounds. Everything went into their mutuals. In the end, there was clearly not enough for tuition, but for books and the stray legal scrape for each of them at college, and Jesse last month used the remainder of his to make the down on his first house. Jake is using his for living expenses for a Masters Degree at University of Texas in Austin.
Forget the high flyers. Go with what you know.


Funny that GE was mentioned in the thread. When my dad died I inherited his GE shares. A good handfull.

If all goes well I will also pass them on to the next generation.

Keith Wilson
04-15-2015, 01:39 PM
With very, very few exceptions, nobody can consistently beat the market. Some people sometimes get lucky.

However, none of that has anything to do with the wisdom of privatizing Social Security. That would be a bad idea on the order of the Maginot Line or the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, or maybe worse.

David G
04-15-2015, 01:49 PM
Fellow democrats. Before you start thinking that this Rand Paul guy makes a lot of sense, look at what he advocates for if he was in charge. And this is just the beginning.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/25/1771561/the-5-worst-things-about-rand-pauls-budget-proposal/

Yes... before we got distracted by quibbles about the stock market... this is what we were talking about.

Michael D. Storey
04-16-2015, 12:26 PM
Funny that GE was mentioned in the thread. When my dad died I inherited his GE shares. A good handfull.

If all goes well I will also pass them on to the next generation.
GE just bought Lufkin, it is my understanding. Lufkin makes those oil pumps that dot the landscape. Jack Pumps, I think. GE is going long on petro-dependency, it would appear.