U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

Zyphlin said:

You're suggesting social security raises more than $695 Billion dollars in revenue? I'd need to see some legitimate sources showing that, and not some liberal blog throwing up a random image without any numbers of information backing up how they got it.

Unless you're talking about Social Security taxes as opposed to social security payouts, in which case no dice. That social security tax is part of the overall revenue generated. So its already taken into account in regards to the total federal revenue generated, which is still leaving us with a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. If you have accurate and official numbers for what the total revenue would be sans SS tax and we remove the SS spending from the equation and judge the whole thing there, I'd be interested in seeing it.

But as it stands. Both SS taxes and SS spending is included in the total budget regarding the amount of revenue and the amount of spending. You can not erase one and ignore the other.

Click to expand...

SS has historically had a surplus. Over the years, I think it's something like $12T in surpluses

sangha said:

You said "corporations", not "families" You're moving the goal posts

Click to expand...

I said neither...I didnt bring up either...and if you dont think the Kennedy's were a corporation, you dont know much about history.

But hey...as long as we all agree that there are just as many capitalist left leaning ****heads protecting their wealth as there are right...I guess we can all find common ground.

AdamT said:

Bottom line: the American people very clearly want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a strong defense, and we cannot pay for those programs unless we raise taxes to historical norms.

Click to expand...

It's true those are very popular programs. We all want to see cuts, and some people want to do away with those programs... When the debate gets to that point, there is going to be more resistance to slash them. The only other thing the government could do is to go around the backs of the people and altogether destroy those programs.

SheWolf said:

Our tax rates are low in comparison to other countries, if people want to preserve their entitlements then they have to realize they will have to eventually agree to a higher tax rate. This debate is eventually going to reach a point where a lot of people will say enough cutting my entitlements, and then the debate will be about raising or not raising taxes.

Click to expand...

But there are a couple of problems with your statement. Most of the "people" that want to not only protect but also expand their "entitlements" arent the ones paying for them. They have no problem with raising taxes...in fact embrace it...because they know they will impact the other guys. Thats why the "everyone has to pay their fair share" is so dishonest.

VanceMack said:

I did. I told you...stop bringing up people that hid their families wealth to avoid paying taxes...

Click to expand...

What about the Kerry's? They were accused of doing that...

sangha said:

Not realisitic. There's plenty of defense spending tucked away in the budgets of depts other than the DoD

Click to expand...

Here, I know it seems rare for you to bother to debate rather than post one liners and pictures, but it may help for you to realize that just because you...an individual with little to no credibility or longevity on this forum to give anyone reason to just believe what you say as truthful and not hyper partisan BS...say something is true doesn't mean it is.

Please, highlight what other locations defense spending is "tucked away in". More than that, I'm interested to see if its "tucked away" in an area that makes up more than 2% of national spending.

Even if every single solitary dollar from every single solitary other budgetary location that makes up less than 2% of the budget was then added on top of the DOD budget it would still be less than total entitlements spending. Actually, even if you removed Social Security, it would still be lower than all the other entitlements combined.

And that's using an entirely unrealistic and unreasonable assumption that 100% of the budget for Department of State, DHS, House and Urban Development, Commerce, Labor, Interior, the GSA, and everything else were ALL spent on Defense issues.

sangha said:

SS has historically had a surplus. Over the years, I think it's something like $12T in surpluses

Click to expand...

Again, are you basing this off taxes? Again, lets see some links from repuatable sources backing this up. Again, the money from SS taxes is included in the revenue that is still leaving us with a $1.4 trillion defecit. So unless you're going to supply me with numbers so we can accurately take SS revenue out of total revenue as well as take SS spending out of total spending so we can get accurate percentages based on that, take your tired and useless argument and pound sand. Simply stating it is so doesn't make it so. I'm looking at total spending as a part of total revenue. Social Security is part of spending. Indeed, its the largest part of spending.

VanceMack said:

But there are a couple of problems with your statement. Most of the "people" that want to not only protect but also expand their "entitlements" arent the ones paying for them. They have no problem with raising taxes...in fact embrace it...because they know they will impact the other guys. Thats why the "everyone has to pay their fair share" is so dishonest.

Click to expand...

Which entitlements are you talking about? I am talking about the ones we all pay into and all benefit from... like SS.

Again, we pay low tax rates... Nearly half of American households paid no federal income taxes but still paid there SS taxes, and a lot of right wing people even support a tax increase with the fair tax. It's true that giving people all these tax credits has spoiled people and they will be pissed to give them up, and all the politicians are scared to be the one to ask them to do it. But another issue is, a lot of the biggest tax credits like EIC is given to low income families, and that is afforded by the higher tax taxes the wealthier pay. If our nation becomes more prosperous and successful, and as the income gap decreases there will be more high income tax payers anyway. I am going to be paying higher taxes in the future, because I finished college and will only be making more and more money each year. I personally don't have a problem with that...

Also, from what I'm seeing the surplus is closer to $2.4 trillion rather than $12 Trillion as you suggest. That's a rather huge gap in terms of numbers. Additioanlly, the CBO stated that this year we'd pay out more in Social Security then we'd pull in. Furthermore, you dishonestly wish to look at the past and act like that is some kidn of garaunteed trend while refusing to look at facts about the future. Namely that over the next twenty years we are set to almost double the amount of people partaking in Social Security benefits and that it'll increase from being about 5% of GDP to 6% (Link). So while in the past we've run some surplus's, in the future we'll be running deficits.

So it appears your numbers are off, your premise is off, and your attempts at "debate" through one liners and pictures is off as well.

VanceMack said:

I said neither...I didnt bring up either...and if you dont think the Kennedy's were a corporation, you dont know much about history.

But hey...as long as we all agree that there are just as many capitalist left leaning ****heads protecting their wealth as there are right...I guess we can all find common ground.

Click to expand...

You're right, it wasn't you who said corporations, so I edited the post, but not soon enough for you to quote it. My bad

However, the discussion was about corporations, until you tried to change it to families.

And no, the Kennedys' were not a corporation. They owned corps, but they weren't a corp. Saying so is sophistic.

And corps are neither left nor right. They are economic entities designed to make a profit

VanceMack said:

But there are a couple of problems with your statement. Most of the "people" that want to not only protect but also expand their "entitlements" arent the ones paying for them. They have no problem with raising taxes...in fact embrace it...because they know they will impact the other guys. Thats why the "everyone has to pay their fair share" is so dishonest.

Click to expand...

The majority who want to expand entitlements are the same majority who pays the majority of taxes.

Zyphlin said:

Here, I know it seems rare for you to bother to debate rather than post one liners and pictures, but it may help for you to realize that just because you...an individual with little to no credibility or longevity on this forum to give anyone reason to just believe what you say as truthful and not hyper partisan BS...say something is true doesn't mean it is.

Please, highlight what other locations defense spending is "tucked away in". More than that, I'm interested to see if its "tucked away" in an area that makes up more than 2% of national spending.

Even if every single solitary dollar from every single solitary other budgetary location that makes up less than 2% of the budget was then added on top of the DOD budget it would still be less than total entitlements spending. Actually, even if you removed Social Security, it would still be lower than all the other entitlements combined.

And that's using an entirely unrealistic and unreasonable assumption that 100% of the budget for Department of State, DHS, House and Urban Development, Commerce, Labor, Interior, the GSA, and everything else were ALL spent on Defense issues.

Click to expand...

So you have no argument besides attacking my credibility?

You should have said so from the beginning.

And the budgets of the other depts include a lot of entitlements for the wealthy.

Zyphlin said:

Again, are you basing this off taxes? Again, lets see some links from repuatable sources backing this up. Again, the money from SS taxes is included in the revenue that is still leaving us with a $1.4 trillion defecit. So unless you're going to supply me with numbers so we can accurately take SS revenue out of total revenue as well as take SS spending out of total spending so we can get accurate percentages based on that, take your tired and useless argument and pound sand. Simply stating it is so doesn't make it so. I'm looking at total spending as a part of total revenue. Social Security is part of spending. Indeed, its the largest part of spending.

Click to expand...

The revenues collected by the govt for SS funding exceed the SS expenditures. This surplus is loaned to the govt for purposes of reducing the deficit.

The reason why the budget has a deficit is because of ON-BUDGET spending, not SS which is off the budget.

You can talk about total spending vs total revenue, but I am free to point out that SS reduces the deficit.

Zyphlin said:

Also, from what I'm seeing the surplus is closer to $2.4 trillion rather than $12 Trillion as you suggest. That's a rather huge gap in terms of numbers. Additioanlly, the CBO stated that this year we'd pay out more in Social Security then we'd pull in. Furthermore, you dishonestly wish to look at the past and act like that is some kidn of garaunteed trend while refusing to look at facts about the future. Namely that over the next twenty years we are set to almost double the amount of people partaking in Social Security benefits and that it'll increase from being about 5% of GDP to 6% (Link). So while in the past we've run some surplus's, in the future we'll be running deficits.

So it appears your numbers are off, your premise is off, and your attempts at "debate" through one liners and pictures is off as well.

Click to expand...

The reason why the SS deficit for this year is news is because SS almost always runs a surplus and has for decades. So your link confirms my claim that SS has historically run a surplus. And SS is projected to run surpluses for many years. The only way it shows a deficit is when the projections use a long-term growth rate so low that it has not happened in this country at anytime during our lifetimes.

Actually, I had many arguments. Its rather obvious based on your posts why you chose to ignore them.

I had the argument that even if we believed your ridiculous comment, and even if we made dozens of other departments spend all their money on defense, that it STILL doesn't equal to what the cost of entitlements sans SS equal, let alone when you add social security into it. I had the argument that even if we did have a portion of every non-entitlement budget going towards defense spending it'd STILL be less than entitlements.

And so your counter is to...bitch about the wealthy? What about my posts had ANYTHING to do with the wealthy. I know you wish to back peddle and attempt to play the "wealthy" line as if its a get out of free card or a Draw 4 in Uno. Its not. Especialy in a situation where I've not even talked about the wealthy. I'm talking about entitlements vs defense spending, not upper vs lower class, not wealthy vs poor.

Entitlement spending, and defense spending, both need to be addressed and people need to get out of denail over it. Entitlement spending needs to be cut, yes cut from the "wealthy" and from the "poor" and from the "middle class" as well. It simply needs to be cut.

sangha said:

The revenues collected by the govt for SS funding exceed the SS expenditures. This surplus is loaned to the govt for purposes of reducing the deficit.

Click to expand...

And yet we still are running a 1.4T deficit this year with over half of spending going to entitlements, and with over 1/3rd of it going to entitlements other than Social Security.

The reason why the budget has a deficit is because of ON-BUDGET spending, not SS which is off the budget.

Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. If we removed every single bit of off-budget, non mandatory spending....we'd still be running around a $43 billion dollar DEFICIT.

You can talk about total spending vs total revenue, but I am free to point out that SS reduces the deficit.

Click to expand...

SOME years it reduces the deficit, and by an infantismal amount. For instance, the total surplus of SS over its entire existance is 2.4 trillion...only 1 trillion more than this years deficit ALONE. You can also make that argument while ignoring that the trend you are so leaning upon is set to shift over the next 20 years as SS starts to apply to far more individuals and we begin, as the CBO said would be the case this year, to run a deficit rather than a surplus with regards to SS.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, I had many arguments. Its rather obvious based on your posts why you chose to ignore them.

I had the argument that even if we believed your ridiculous comment, and even if we made dozens of other departments spend all their money on defense, that it STILL doesn't equal to what the cost of entitlements sans SS equal, let alone when you add social security into it. I had the argument that even if we did have a portion of every non-entitlement budget going towards defense spending it'd STILL be less than entitlements.

Click to expand...

Again, you are looking at only one side of the picture (ie spending) without looking at the total picture (ie revenues), which is sophistic. Even your own link implies that a SS deficit is unusual.

And so your counter is to...bitch about the wealthy? What about my posts had ANYTHING to do with the wealthy. I know you wish to back peddle and attempt to play the "wealthy" line as if its a get out of free card or a Draw 4 in Uno. Its not. Especialy in a situation where I've not even talked about the wealthy. I'm talking about entitlements vs defense spending, not upper vs lower class, not wealthy vs poor.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that military spending benefits corporations, while entitlements benefit the majority of americans will not strengthen your arguments. It is sophistry

Entitlement spending, and defense spending, both need to be addressed and people need to get out of denail over it. Entitlement spending needs to be cut, yes cut from the "wealthy" and from the "poor" and from the "middle class" as well. It simply needs to be cut.

Click to expand...

And yet, the rightwing won't touch defense spending. It was the rightwing who were thrilled to throw money at the HSA, the TSA, and the MIC.

If you want to know what is causing the deficits, here ya go

sangha said:

So you have no argument besides attacking my credibility?

You should have said so from the beginning.

And the budgets of the other depts include a lot of entitlements for the wealthy.

Click to expand...

Unlike you, Z has a ton of credibility on this forum.

Zyphlin said:

And yet we still are running a 1.4T deficit this year with over half of spending going to entitlements, and with over 1/3rd of it going to entitlements other than Social Security.

Click to expand...

Thanks to bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afhanistan, and spending programs passed under bush* by republicans

Absolutely incorrect. If we removed every single bit of off-budget, non mandatory spending....we'd still be running around a $43 billion dollar DEFICIT.

Click to expand...

That's nothing.

SOME years it reduces the deficit, and by an infantismal amount. For instance, the total surplus of SS over its entire existance is 2.4 trillion...only 1 trillion more than this years deficit ALONE. You can also make that argument while ignoring that the trend you are so leaning upon is set to shift over the next 20 years as SS starts to apply to far more individuals and we begin, as the CBO said would be the case this year, to run a deficit rather than a surplus with regards to SS.

Click to expand...

No, almost every year it reduces the budget by billions. And your surplus # does not include the interest the trust fund earns. More sophistry

And I was wrong. It's not a $12T surplus

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000366/-$22-trillion-Social-Security-surplus-revealed-on-C-SPAN

AdamT said:

Bottom line: the American people very clearly want Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a strong defense, and we cannot pay for those programs unless we raise taxes to historical norms.

Click to expand...

SS, Medicare and Medicaide have unfunded liabilities over $100,000,000,000,000.00. Hate to break it to you sport, but there isn't enough MONEY in the world to fund what the American people "want" because some politicians promised them.

MrVicchio said:

SS, Medicare and Medicaide have unfunded liabilities over $100,000,000,000,000.00. Hate to break it to you sport, but there isn't enough MONEY in the world to fund what the American people "want" because some politicians promised them.

Click to expand...

Since you have done such a bad job of predicting the past, I can't believe your predictions of the future

sangha said:

The reason why the SS deficit for this year is news is because SS almost always runs a surplus and has for decades.

Click to expand...

Yes, it has been...in the past. However, projections show it doing quite the opposite in the future and this year is an example of that. However, not surprising, as you went on and on about the "surplus" of social security (grossly exaggerating it by 10 trillion dollars) you somehow forgot to mention that the most recent year actually is a deficit.

So your link confirms my claim that SS has historically run a surplus.

Click to expand...

Where did I say it didn't?

It however destroys the notion that its a TWELVE Trillion dollar surplus, not to mention destroys the implications you attempt to make that suggest that somehow that surplus is something to be counted on in the future rather than a trend that is set to become extinct.

And SS is projected to run surpluses for many years.

Click to expand...

Again, show me where? My links showed that this year its projected to run a deficit, not a surplus. It also showed us set to almost double the amount of people getting pay outs. Birth rates since the 1980's have been significantly lower than those of the 50's-60's which will be hitting retirement, creating a situation where there are less people paying in and more people taking out. Indeed, we have about half as many kids born per 1,000 people now as we did in 1960. Indeed, 2010 was the lowest birth rate in a century. Meanwhile our life expentency is increasing and our death rate has decreased over the past decade.

So we have more people going onto social security, they're living longer, they're dying less frequently, and we're had less babies born to have people paying into the system.

You're banking off a trend that's occured over the past 20 to 30 years while ignoring the numerous changes in the variables that would play into it.

The only way it shows a deficit is when the projections use a long-term growth rate so low that it has not happened in this country at anytime during our lifetimes.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, it showed a deficit THIS YEAR. Furthermore, the projections are using a long-term growth rate that is on par with what's been occuring over the past few decades which is that the numbers remain at a steady low number as compared to the years past.

American said:

Unlike you, Z has a ton of credibility on this forum.

Click to expand...

So? He is still not right on everything... he totally ignores the Bush tax cuts and the two unfunded wars Bush started. Both of these have had a massive impact on the deficit and the debt load we have today. All he is blaming is the usual suspects of the US right while ignoring the "favourites" of the US right.

Tettsuo said:

In all reality, you can't include SS which pays for itself (and other programs). It's more of a revenue stream than an actual cost.

Click to expand...

SS ran a Deficit this year, and is anticipating almost $600,000,000,000.00 over the coming decade. And that's WITH rosey economic improvement projections.

sangha said:

SS has historically had a surplus. Over the years, I think it's something like $12T in surpluses

Click to expand...

CNSNews.com) – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that Social Security will effectively run a $45-billion deficit in 2011 and continue to run deficits totaling $547 billion over the coming decade.
The admission comes in the CBO’s semi-annual economic review that projects federal spending, debt, and economic growth. In the report, the CBO also examines the impact of projected economic performance on the trust fund that nominally funds Social Security.
“Excluding interest, surpluses for Social Security become deficits of $45 billion in 2011 and $547 billion over the 2012–2021 period,” the CBO reported.

Click to expand...

CBO: Social Security to Run $45 Billion Deficit in 2011 | CNSnews.com

$12,000,000,000,000.00 from where? Where DO you get your numbers from?