|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
Quote:
Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code. Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital. The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above. According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed. The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs. The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.
Was your post in support of Donald Trump or against?
"the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade" "The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above."
So Trump wants to raise the Federal deficit by over $10 trillion. NO THANKS.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Trump [Re: qman]
#22941016 - 02/24/16 01:57 PM (7 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: The point being is that SS is a pay as you go system, it works as long as people continue to work and contribute to the SS payroll tax.
Do you think people will stop working and paying into SS? 
It may need additional money at some future point in time, which can easily be found by eliminating the cap for the wealthy that allows them to pay zero into SSI after they earn $118,500.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
hostileuniverse said: http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan
Quote:
Trump’s tax plan would substantially lower individual income taxes and the corporate income tax and eliminate a number of complex features in the current tax code. Mr. Trump’s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital. The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above. According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to an 11 percent higher GDP over the long term provided that the tax cut could be appropriately financed. The plan would also lead to a 29 percent larger capital stock, 6.5 percent higher wages, and 5.3 million more full-time equivalent jobs. The plan would cut taxes and lead to higher after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all levels of income.
Was your post in support of Donald Trump or against?
"the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade" "The plan would also result in increased outlays due to higher interest on the debt, creating a ten-year deficit somewhat larger than the estimates above."
So Trump wants to raise the Federal deficit by over $10 trillion. NO THANKS.
That's not Trump's analysis of the outcome of his tax plan. So it's disingenuous to suggest "Trump wants to raise the Federal deficit by over $10 trillion".
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
qman said: The point being is that SS is a pay as you go system, it works as long as people continue to work and contribute to the SS payroll tax.
Do you think people will stop working and paying into SS? 
It may need additional money at some future point in time, which can easily be found by eliminating the cap for the wealthy that allows them to pay zero into SSI after they earn $118,500.
I never said SS payments or solvency was going to be a problem, and yes the cap should be moved much higher.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Trump [Re: qman]
#22941051 - 02/24/16 02:09 PM (7 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
so we're all in agreement then?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
Re: Trump [Re: qman]
#22941086 - 02/24/16 02:20 PM (7 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: So Trump wants to raise the Federal deficit by over $10 trillion. NO THANKS.
That's not Trump's analysis of the outcome of his tax plan. So it's disingenuous to suggest "Trump wants to raise the Federal deficit by over $10 trillion".
Correct, it's the Tax Foundation's analysis of Trump's plan that HU posted.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: so we're all in agreement then?
I don't believe there's a "trust fund" with $2.3 trillion worth of value, it's stuffed with nothing more than IOU's.
I guess one the long term problems SS is going to face is the changing demographics and the increasing life expectancy. So it's a fact that SS will run into major funding deficits, at that point it's up to the government on how to solve it.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: Trump [Re: qman]
#22941112 - 02/24/16 02:27 PM (7 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: so we're all in agreement then?
I don't believe there's a "trust fund" with $2.3 trillion worth of value, it's stuffed with nothing more than IOU's.
I guess one the long term problems SS is going to face is the changing demographics and the increasing life expectancy. So it's a fact that SS will run into major funding deficits, at that point it's up to the government on how to solve it.
it is probably worth mentioning that those are the same IOU's that are backing the Federal Reserve Notes in your wallet. Would you make the same argument that those Federal Reserve Notes are just worthless IOUs? What should SSI invest surpluses in instead? Gold?
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
I believe qman is correct on this.
There was a huge trust fund surplus, which the Government "borrowed" from itself and spent. Hence, the money is no longer there; only a big IOU.
The only way for the Government to repay this IOU is to collect it back from the taxpayer in the future (hopefully by removing the SSI cap on the rich).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Payroll taxes are paid in to fund OASI and SSDI. In some years(when wages are high and unemployment is low), more money comes in than is paid out in benefits. Any surplus is required by law to be invested in Treasury Bonds, bills, and notes. This investment is essentially the same as loaning money to the treasury. Where the "double tax" comes in is that the interest on this loan(bonds), which was paid for by the surplus payroll revenues, has to be paid with taxes when the bonds are cashed out. OASI currently has assets equaling ~2.7 trillion, or enough to cover projected spending for a couple decades. SSDI is almost broke and is scheduled to run out of money later this year.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
As you correctly noted, the treasury owes OASI ~$2.7 trillion. But the treasury doesn't have that money - it gave it to Congress to spend. That money is gone. To pay those loans back, Congress would have to collect ~2.7 trillion in additional taxes.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
just like it does with every bond that it issues, including the ones issued to the USPS retirement fund and the Federal Reserve
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Exactly.
It's ridiculous for any of them to claim to have money. That debt could just be written off, and we'd be in the exact same situation. Social Security will eventually need additional money whether or not it has bonds to cash in. Either way, the money would have to be collected in additional taxes.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
they could sell the bonds before they mature i guess?  in either case, the cap needs to be lifted sooner or later.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 20 days
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said: they could sell the bonds before they mature i guess? 
Those are "special issue" securities, which are not available to the public. Hence, those bonds would need to be redeemed by the treasury, which would have to use current tax money to pay for them, whether cashed in before or at maturity.
Social Security is 'pay as you go', so the treasury always needs to raise the required amount of money from the taxpayer to pay for it each year, whether it buys back trust fund securities or not.
The ~$2.7 trillion would only be 'real' if it were held in some kind of Government savings account. Does that make sense?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 22 hours
|
|
I thought this thread was about BLOWHARD?
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said: I thought this thread was about BLOWHARD? 
You mean the next US President.
|
Webster10
Up like Trump



Registered: 12/03/13
Posts: 9,966
Loc: Strawberry Fields
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
starfire_xes said: I thought this thread was about BLOWHARD? 
Ted Cruz is a fucking idiot. Why do you want a fucking idiot as president?
--------------------
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,816
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: they could sell the bonds before they mature i guess? 
Those are "special issue" securities, which are not available to the public. Hence, those bonds would need to be redeemed by the treasury, which would have to use current tax money to pay for them, whether cashed in before or at maturity.
Social Security is 'pay as you go', so the treasury always needs to raise the required amount of money from the taxpayer to pay for it each year, whether it buys back trust fund securities or not.
The ~$2.7 trillion would only be 'real' if it were held in some kind of Government savings account. Does that make sense? 
The part about the special issue securities, sure. But since Federal Reserve Notes are also backed by Treasury Bonds, it seems to me that even if SSI kept its reserves in cash, at the end of the day, that cash would still represent U.S. debt that would have to be repayed at some point by the taxpayers. The only real difference is that by holding the bonds instead of cash, SSI collects the interest instead of the Fed.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
starfire_xes
I Am 'They'



Registered: 10/24/09
Posts: 21,590
Loc: Dallas with all the assho...
Last seen: 7 months, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
Webster10 said:
Quote:
starfire_xes said: I thought this thread was about BLOWHARD? 
Ted Cruz is a fucking idiot. Why do you want a fucking idiot as president?
Why would you support someone whow:
Sucks up to Big Ethanol
Tells us he will fight immigration but imports 1100 foreign workers to take american jobs
Tells everyone he doesn't know what Cruz is talking about about Trump wanting the Federal Government to keep Federal Lands on states, when Trump told Field and Stream in an interview that 'he thinks the US Government should keep all those federal lands>?>
Hes a pathological liar. Exactly what he accuses everyone else of, He hasn't really discussed much about issues in the last 3 months, he just says something outrageous and then moves on before anyone fact checks him, or calls anyone who disputes him a liar.
The Press and people are eating this shit up and don't even question it. You are being played like a violin.
One of my favorite lines: "When I want to get a rise out of people I bring up the wall"
Why dont you fact check the loud mouthed jackass?
Maybe he will do what he said, but what he says is whatever people want to hear and no one questions him. I don't trust him as far as I could throw Hillary with one arm.
|
|