This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jobs - A Solution at Hand?
Big job confab at the White House today. Some very smart folks are in
attendance. No doubt but that there will be some good recommendations
made. The question is can we afford to implement any of them?
I am as certain as I can be that one of the suggestions that will be
put forward would work. The National Federation of Independent
Business’s (NFIB) has recommended that payroll taxes be eliminated for
at least one-year.
Take a closer look at the implications of this. It is my estimate that
2010 calendar year payroll taxes will be $680 billion. This is a
massive amount of money. If the tax were suspended for a year a portion
of this pile of money would go directly into the pockets of America’s
90 million+ workers. It would equally go into their employer’s coffers.
The primary beneficiaries would be small businesses. In other words,
this would go right to where it is most needed.
At roughly $700 mmm this would be a size equal to the entire two-year
stimulus program of February 2009. But its impact would be multiples of
that in terms of increased demand in the economy.
I do not have a big computer, but a program like this would result in a
jump in GDP of 3-4% just by itself. A guess on job creation would be
around 3mm. If you want a big jolt in the arm this is it.
Eliminating payroll taxes for one year would be a very progressive
step. Therefore there would be political support for this approach.
Doing so for 2010 would put hundreds of billions back in people's
pockets just before next year’s elections. Who could find fault with
that?
There is one significant flaw to this approach. It would devastate the
Social Security Trust Fund. That is something that Congress will not
allow to happen. Even with the benefits that may go with it, that would
be a 'no sale'.
There is a way to do this Revenue Neutral to the Trust
Fund. It is relatively easy. You just have to cut current and future
benefits that the Fund pays out. That would be extremely unpopular.
Nothing like that could pass either.The Grey Panthers would rise up
against the Democrats.
There is one approach that could work. A “means” tax on benefits for a
stated period of time. A simple rule: If one has taxable income over
$150,000 they do not get benefits for the following year. If this were
in place for approximately five years the Fund would have offset the
shortfall incurred in the first year where no taxes are collected.
The number of individuals who are both 65 and earn $150,000 is not
large. They may yell and scream at this, but they are small in number.
Those same individuals have significant irons in the fire. They would
benefit from the robust economy that would follow. To make it fair,
the amount that had been withheld could be deducted from future death
taxes that will come due. My point is, this deal is sellable. The bulk
of the "Panthers" would love it.
These are the pieces for the largest stimulus effort in history. And it is budget neutral.
Keynes would be proud. The results would be dramatic. The impacts would
be lasting. This by itself would not right our economy. But it would
give us three to four years in order to dig ourselves out of a hole.
It will be interesting to see if the approach by the NFIB gets the attention that it deserves.
Note: The Trust Fund owns $2.5 Trillion of Government IOU’s.
For them (through Treasury) to repo $650b into the 1-3 year credit
market over the course of a year would not represent a significant
issue for the bond market. One consequence would be that this would
drain available liquidity; precisely what the Fed has told us it
intends to do. This would be achieved with less impact on supply and
demand than other options available to the Fed. A drain of about $700b
is approximately the right size.
»
- advertisements -
The author Bruce Krasting is right on subject but wrong on direction. Placing more money in the pockets of the consumers is not going to improve economy. When the people do not have jobs, their income is anyway negligible; in fact they have no income at all, so they are not subject to taxes. Further, a person may be paying tax of say $6000 or $ 500 per month if he has income of $48,000 or $4000 per month, he will have more money in the pocket.
Granting tax exemption for whole year should be done for businesses or corporate sector, not individuals. The business creates jobs - they will put in more money into the pocket of consumers who are job seekers first. What is more important - giving person a $4000 per month or giving him tax break of $500 per month. Who will spend more?
I am the author of new book "SUB PRIME RESOLVED" which moots the idea of exemption of taxes for corporate taxes for one full year. My chapter on "Dynamic Theory of Taxation" of 30 pages with extensive revised Tax Schedule of 16 pages each for both Individuals and Corporate sector will reduce the taxes at every level. I have argued for the lower taxes only after creating almost $1.6 trillion tax income from taxing the Euro dollar, which is an illegal currency, created and trading outside USA beyond the control of FED/Treasury. This way, tax benefits to domestic Americans and Corporate sector will be given out of tax income from counterfeit electronic money created outside United States by irresponsible banks.
Do you know that the Corporate sector paid only $ 300 billions of income taxes whereas the American consumers were paying over $2.7 Trillions? That, corporate sector used up 70% of national credit paying only 10% of taxes, whereas American tax payers paid 90% of taxes using up only 30% of national credit? Do you also think that Cost of saving Citigroup $ 400 billions, which is 133% of Corporate taxes of all companies taken together in United States, is justifiable?
My book "Sub Prime Resolved" which is in fact a "Complete Bible of Economic Recovery of the United States of America" is the only book that offers total solution to every problem being discussed everywhere. The book suggests means to create jobs in manufacturing sector, import wealthy Immigrants under new Business Immigration Scheme who will be investing in sub prime assets and homes and cars to pull out the America out of recession in just under 9 months. It will create over 6 millions jobs in 3 years positively.
My book emphasizes that America needs to import "Wealthy Businessmen" from abroad rather than "Poor Employees under H1B visa. America needs "Job givers or creators" not "Job takers". That is the essence of my extra ordinary book.
My book "SUB PRIME RESOLVED" is published from Hong Kong (ISBN 978-988-18239-1-5) and available from the Author's website http://anilselarka.com and book website http://www.subprimeresolved.com.
Anil Selarka, Hong Kong
Author of new book "Sub Prime Resolved"
2009.12.04
My stimulus plan
1. All federal worker except FBI and CIA are required to return to the homes of their parents and live there, without pay, until the debt is paid. A few exceptions will be made, such as Dave Ramsey standing in as our unpaid Treasury Secretary. Cushy retirement packages for Congressmen will be revoked immediately. The military will receive full severance packages for their trouble.
2. All U.S. manufacturers with production overseas are offered reimbursement to bring their maufacturing equipment home. We will impose tariffs on a country-by-country basis, unless there is an equal exchange of goods with each country.
3. We will sell our precious metals to fund nuclear power development (and buy it back when we are in the black).
4. We will utilize our oil and natural gas reserves and drain the strategic reserve to pay down our debt.
5. We will close down all foreign military operations, but go full throttle after any Muslim extremists in our country.
6. We will put federal lands up for sale to U.S. citizens and pine for the day when we can afford to buy them back.
7. We will deport all illegal residents and take in no more refugees.
8. We will announce the cancellation of Social Security and Medicaid in 5 years to give people some time to get a plan B in place.
9. We will execute anyone serving a life sentence or who has been convicted of three felonies.
10. We will reclaim the 10th amendment, and the whole Constitution while we're at it.
11. We will cancel Obama's stimulus plan.
Forward-Looking Statements
A projected financial statement based on political expectations. A forward-looking statement involves risks with regard to the accuracy of assumptions underlying the projections. Especially if they are future promises from f-head politicians.
This press release includes forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, any statement that may predict, forecast, indicate or imply future results, performance or achievements. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties faced by the Government including, but not limited to, economic, competitive, governmental, bribes, extortion, blackmail, neuro-propaganda and technological factors outside the control of the Government that may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. In the case of government this entails the assertion, we got the bags of money to our friends now piss off and die. These risks and uncertainties may include the highly competitive nature of the political pandering process. Political lies are common parts of everyday life - we enjoy beverages such as water, soft drink, juice, beer, wine, spirit from bottles - jams and spreads from jars despite the best efforts of our politicians to tax the shit out of us and give all the money to corrupt banks. The political lies and nonsense often involve a far lower level of complexity, automation and attendance involvement and the intense competition from makers of alternative forms of scams; fluctuations in the prices for Ponzis, particularly flatulent natural gas at hearings, and other raw materials; the Goverment's focus on the beer and drugs industry and its dependence on certain key donors; the seasonal nature of brewing bullshit: see beer and other beverage industries; volatility in demand for bribes from emerging new markets; the Government's dependence on certain executive officers and enforcers; changes in environmental and other government regulations; and actions that may be taken by overtaxed customers and vendors when they freak out completely. The Government operates in a changing environment in which new risk factors can emerge from time to time. Which will get papered over to facilitate exciting innovation in pump and dump technologies. It is not possible for politicians to predict all of these risks, nor can it assess the extent to which any factor, or a combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements. So there. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including without limitation those identified in the Government's previously issued annual report on Form 401-K-Y2U.
(A report required by the Auditor General from exchange-listed graft that provides for preventing completely the annual disclosure of certain financial information.)
Form 401-K-Y2U
Don't bother to ask for more information which could cause actual results to differ from those projected. The Government disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking statements or to do anything useful at all at any time.
(I don't trust politicians dealing forward-looking statements, I guess).
Namke von Federlein
A solution 'at hand'?
Heh.
Hmmm, I wonder if the chinese government is practicing national economic planning in purchasing U.S. treasuries or do they believe in the invisible hand of capitalism to create jobs ?
You're asking if the Chinese believe in Handjobs?
Hmmm, I wonder if the chinese government is practicing national economic planning in purchasing U.S. treasuries or do they believe in the invisible hand of capitalism to create jobs ?
Eliminate the payroll tax, raise the gas tax and higher bracket income tax.
Raising the gas tax would reduce demand for overseas oil. This would keep more dollars here to circulate, reducing our trade deficit, Next item 4 day work week.
Why would this lead to jobs except at the margin? Consumers will continue to pay down debt with increased income and the rest will be eaten up by the ever more efficient rent seeking of our corporations from health care to cable companies as well as being extracted by financial means. No doubt sucking incremental amouts into rising asset markets in the wonderful virtuous circle.
The Post WWII high employment rate/ high wage model in the US was founded upon housing and autos. Each in its own way is now dead as a significant employment engine for a long time, and autos perhaps never.
In addition the US does not exist in a vaccuum. All those issues pertaining to balance of trade and balance of payments dictates falling incomes for Americans. If that is by lower wages or less jobs or both the fact is there is no solution to our problems within the current system
Government revenue growth has come from th middle class over the last 40 years.
The data is here...notice the slice coming from payroll taxes is growing, rapidly!
Federal Revenue History
payroll taxes have grown from less than 9% of the government revenues to almost 40% in the last 40 years. Payroll taxes steal almost as much from the people as income taxes and the growth rates are far greater.
NEO-cons love Reagan and Greenspan who doubled payroll tax rates with their bipartisian committee. The growth of the payroll tax is a blatant attack on the working poor and middle class.
Does anyone else get annoyed at Republicans(or beltway libertarians) who claim that "rich people pay all the taxes" while pretending that payroll taxes don't even exist?
When a MSM liberal is arguing against the republicans you can be sure they will never mention payroll taxes in his rebuttal, because hey....the MSM liberals love payroll taxes!
IMO the 10% of Democrats who have top 10% IQ's are far more ready to consider libertarian views when we rail against the Democrat and Republican hypocrisy related to payroll taxes, than when we focus exclusively on income taxes.
What do we always here about the great dangers of a rising wealth disparity? isn't this classic MSM complaint an easy way of entering into a discussion about eliminating payroll taxes? When we rail against income taxes then we are easily written off/smeared as republicans(which everyone knows are hippocrites). It is amazing how the two crooked parties f*** the working poor and minorities with their payroll taxes(especially the way it penalizes the coal miners and inner city black men dying in their 40's, 50's and 60's...while benefitting the healthy rich white people who live to be 70, 80 or 90.)
I'm too busy to read comments (and I wouldn't be surprised if the smart folks here at ZH have poked holes in it), but my first impression is that I like the proposal, Bruce ...
"This type of proposal seems to be based on the idea that if the government just kick starts activity it will take off from there, that "animal spirits" will kick in"
Animal spirits are alive but are haunting in the financial sphere of the economy instead of the goods producing economy.
Who with money and in their right mind would start or operate a business today? There are easier profits to made speculating in financial assets than in creating a viable business-no pesky employees to worry about, no multiple governments looking over your shoulder, no long term capital investments to lock your funds into. And I can't thing of a better way to hide/even out taxes on income that by inking an Investment LLC. Best of all you can buy loss protection if you make a bad trade but try to find someone willing to write loss protection on a business startup.
"It would be a huge blow to the American ideal of working, dutifully paying for retirement and medical benefits, and then receiving benefits after retirement."
SS is nothing more than a transfer(wealth redistribution) tax. Consider it as such and plan your future accordingly.
A "means" test for receiving medicare and sosial security benefits is a very bad idea. For one, the test's break point would immediately become another political football that would be kicked around in every session of congress. Where would this end? One year $150,000 of income would be the cutoff, then all of a sudden it might drop to $100,000, or go up to $200,000.
A much larger problem is the damage it would do to our society in general. It would be a huge blow to the American ideal of working, dutifully paying for retirement and medical benefits, and then receiving benefits after retirement.
In my view the whole thing would be too horrible to contemplate. That this topic is on the table at all is testimony to the bad job all governments do with our finances.
Kind of a kick in the teeth to the unemployed especially those laid off during all of this. I dont think it would work quickly enough to compensate with improved employment conditions, with the spectre of back to normal in a year.
I like this idea, a lot. Why can't we tax big corporations(the ones that have lobbyists, get taxpayer funded bailouts, and benefit from corporate welfare payments) at a higher rate and reduce small corporations(those <1bb in revenues) taxes by a similar amount? Now THAT is a populist idea I can get my arms around!
I'd rather not tax those corporations, I'd rather just not bail them out in the first place. :-)
Leave it up to NFIB to suggest something this ludicris. I worked for them for two years during the recession of '81-'83. This "non-profit" organization is a clubby neo-con lobbyist for boutique businesses, dry cleaners, sandwich shops, etc.--hardly the engine of job growth for a strong America. They endorse pervasive anti-labor practices and exist only to promote and protect owners, not employees. I procured printed materials of their propaganda before leaving for a 'real job' in the real world. Small business owners have lucrative tax write-off oppurtunities that allow them to shirk their tax obligations already. Suspending the payroll tax makes no sense.
First announce all the Fed governors, congress, czars/czarinas will be entering the space program, put them in a windowless rocket and send them into orbit. Institute a new feudal system to replace the current free market and see if anyone notices. And regardless of who wins the superbowl - invite the Detroit Lions to the Whitehouse and declare them the winners.
The tax elimination should go only to small business (need definition of small) that hires new employees.
The tax elimination should go only to small business (need definition of small) that hires new employees.
Bruce,
Without reindustrializing America and creating useful jobs for our fellow citizens - jobs that lead to profits; real, unsubsidized profits that are reinvested in strengthening America - all else falls by the wayside.
Sure. I'd like more money in my pocket via lower taxes, but whatever portion of this money is spent on foreign produced goods is largely non-stimulative as far as building a vibrant domestic economy is concerned.
And then, yes, there's the deficit and national debt - less taxes unbalanced by less spending equals piling on further debt. (We all know where this road leads.)
You wanna create jobs? OK. Create a situation beneficial to American producers of goods and services. In other words, "America First." Yeah... protectionism. Put our best government economic minds on the problem of "rigging" our trade situation in such a way as we get the maximum good out of it. Screw "free" trade. Screw "fair" trade. Shooting for (a return to) American economic hegemony sounds like a good plan to me!
Hey... to those who believe in public works and don't much care about deficits and debt... let's at least spend the money sensibly. I suggest breaking ground on 40-80 new nuclear power plants within the next year and a half, jumpstarting a rebuilding of our nation's energy infrastructure and transmission network, and what the heck... while they're at it, how'bout building three or four federal government "owned" oil refineries to go along with the Strategic Oil Reserve and once they're built we keep them in reserve and put 'em on line whenever oil prices pass a certain threshhold (say $100/bl.) in order to force down market (speculative) prices.
Yes, I realize none of this is going to happen. But if the question is "what needs to be done" then these are a few of the answers.
Leetle green shoot?
"Mercedes is relocating a fifth of its C Class plant to Alabama for cost reasons."
Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
I'm sure even the best government economic minds chuckle on this one - hey, they didn't see the Greatest Depression, ever, coming down the ramp for a reason: $$$.
There's a reason why this ship is going down - you can't create the benefits of free trade - it just is by way of focusing on strengths and letting others do what they can much better at a lower cost. We don't need license plate factories just so people can earn a paycheck - the real problem is that the minds of our citizens are impoverished (well, by bank account standards, too) by the scammy education system. We just ship our innovation overseas, nowadays anyway - if it's not lifted off a hard drive by foreign hackers first. Or even domestic hackers.
Ain't no patriotism when it comes to profits. The stronger we can make the minds of our citizens, the stronger their resolve will be to refuse handouts - for anyone!
We need more street sweepers....
http://www.zerohedge.com/forum/good-morning-children
STREET SWEEPERS DO HELP:
1. One of the things which kills streams and rivers is heavy metals. (Heavy metals can kill people. They can also kill tiny critters in the streams which are the food for larger critters which are the food for game fish.) Heavy metals in oil and brake fluid and so forth leak out onto the road, but fortunately, if there is dirt on the road, some of the heavy metals will stick to the dirt, and then if you sweep up the dirt, you can catch the heavy metals before the next storm washes them down the gutter, into the inlet, down the pipe, and into the stream.
2. Dirt itself fills up the inlet, the pipe, and the stream, and clogs them up. Then the street floods, and then next your house gets flooded. It's easier and cheaper to sweep the dirt out of the street between storms than it is to get heavy construction machinery and dig the stream back out. That's a mess!
3. Bicycles and motorcycles can slip on the dirt and fall over. Since a lot of children ride bicycles and a lot of young people ride motorcycles, we can help protect them by sweeping up the dirt. Also, cars trying to brake to avoid hitting something can skid on the dirt. In summary, sweeping the dirt off the road improves public safety.
And you, my friend, must be one miserable bureaucrat holed-up in a cubical somewhere. Haven't you anything else to do with my freakin' tax money you worthless piece of crap. You can't even see the stupidity of all your dimwitted government issued policy arguments justifying street sweepers.
"catch the heavy metals before the next storm washes them down the gutter,"
Bwahahahahaha...catch heavy metals....bwahahahahaaaaa....
Legalize it! :-)
Bruce, thanks for sticking your neck out. Good thoughts all, especially, the one- where are the guarantees that the employer will create jobs. Unfortunately, we are far down the rat/well hole that the light is dimmer and dimmer.
Summits truly don't create jobs especially if key players are not part of the summit. Dearest Leader and his patsies/quislings knows how Chicago goes, so goes Washington. Total analysis paralysis.
Here is a truly VIABLE solution...
No personal or income taxes.
No taxes on securities of any kind.
Simply enact a 15% Consumption tax.
10% goes to the states.
5% goes to the fed.
Why? The tax take will be much higher than the current system.
American Psychology "free at last" will invigorate Americans.
Businesses worldwide will insist on a US domicile
along with the jobs.
There will be a labor shortage in the US if enacted.
One will actually buy American made products while
shopping at WalMart.
The US enters its next Golden Era.
http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/07/14/dail...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
McCain gets $1,930 a month from 'broken' Social Security system
SS needs to means tested. I take home around 2,000 a month after taxes. I have a family to support.
Why in the hell do I have to support this unfair redistribution of wealth?
SS was set up as a forced savings scheme such that you are theoretically only getting your money back. So it is not a redistribuiton of wealth to give him his own money. At least that is how the scheme has been sold to the public.
I would welcome the move tremendously. It would send a message to the world, that America is still a capitalist nation and willing to be a leader in taxation policies.
The Euros would crap their pants, the rest of the global economy would pay attention and look for investment opportunities.
The price is small fry compared to the stupid useless programs that have been funded and are looking at more funding, ie healthcare. The nation can handle 680 billion in lost tax revenues easily when treasury paper gets snapped up like fresh buns. Imagine treasury paper flying off the shelves and prices on those items soaring due to the renewed faith and trust in a capitalist world leader.
America is at a crossroads. Go down in history like the rest of the minion nations or set the stage for the future of a more capitalist world. Fcuk Howard Dean, the debate on socialism vs. capitalism is not settled. Fcuk all socialists and marxists. Go work for a living and fetch your own bones.
I'm with Cyan Lite.
Business would save the payroll tax windfall while better off consumers will just save it or pay down debt. Poor consumers will spend it on foreign goods-hardly a job stimulus.
The best incentive would be a tax credit for hiring permanent workers. Those businesses that are teetering on whether to hire but are fearful of further economic contraction will have more incentive to take the risk.
Having the health care debate finalize would also be a big plus-small businesses have to know their costs.
Senior citizens would further suffer since interest rates would remain low and therby lowering earnings for those on fixed income. Additionally further deficits are not justified or prudent. Unfortunatly the more we stimulate , the more we decapitalize our treasure and weaken our currency. Yes the problem is creating jobs but the reason for job declines is the global ecomonic model which precludes a balanced U.S. ecomomy. We can not sustain jobs with massive outsourcing and loss of major industries. Reliance on the health industry, the financial sector and Wall St to create jobs is flawed as we are witnessing and leads to bubbles , more company cost cutting and outsourcing to maintain profits . Also it has resulted in an income distribution disparity that could have social consequences. Protectioism is not the answer but a policy of maintaining a "balanced economy" under WTO rules is a step in the the right direction. It seems "strategic planning" of our national security interests is acceptable but national "economic planning" is frowned upon. So what is more important? Can we have one without the other?
In case no one's mentioned it, there is no Social Security "Trust Fund". All surpluses have been shifted into the general fund to close budget deficit gaps. All that remains is a pile of future obligations to be paid for with Treasury Bills. A big, stinking pile of IOUs that the bond market is quickly losing its appetite for.
The federal government will collapse, right along with the U.S. economy, before it is forced to reduce spending. Congress will NEVER willingly reduce spending because the federal government is no longer the entity charged with executing its assigned, Constitutional duties. It is now only a vehicle designed to funnel away wealth from the private sector to corporate and union interests, who in turn keep the lapdogs well fed and entrenched in Washington.
You want to see how this turns out? Read "Atlas Shrugged". If you need a more real example, look at Venezuela. Washington will continue to effectively nationalize a crumbling infrastructure in order to allow the looting to be completed. When there's nothing left to loot, those who can get out, will. The rest of us will have to figure out how to survive in a hollowed-out nation.
fuckin-A
Senior citizens would further suffer since interest rates would remain low and therby lowering earnings for those on fixed income. Additionally further deficits are not justified or prudent. Unfortunatly the more we stimulate , the more we decapitalize our treasure and weaken our currency. Yes the problem is creating jobs but the reason for job declines is the global ecomonic model which precludes a balanced U.S. ecomomy. We can not sustain jobs with massive outsourcing and loss of major industries. Reliance on the health industry, the financial sector and Wall St to create jobs is flawed as we are witnessing and leads to bubbles , more company cost cutting and outsourcing to maintain profits . Also it has resulted in an income distribution disparity that could have social consequences. Protectioism is not the answer but a policy of maintaining a "balanced economy" under WTO rules is a step in the the right direction. It seems "strategic planning" of our national security interests is acceptable but national "economic planning" is frowned upon. So what is more important? Can we have one without the other?
Passage of this would be a Black Swan event.
The skeptic says we don't have the ability to fix the big problems.
Eager to be proven wrong.
This plan is an incentive destroyer. A property rights grabber and reminiscent of the pre-America days of keeping citizens under the control of their masters by stealing from the little reserves and produce they sacrificed to achieve during the many years of their working lives.
You have just shot the little Red Hen.
Progressive, you say? Darn right, it’s progressive, so much so I’m left nearly speechless. It’s so progressive it’s socialist to the core, and in the end just as unworkable. And you call it a solution? To jobs! Robbing targeted senior citizens for the benefit of the mob! "Budget neutral."
But what the heck, justice is muscle, you say: “The number of individuals who are both 65 and earn $150,000 is not large. They may yell and scream at this, but they are small in number. Those same individuals have significant irons in the fire. They would benefit from the robust economy that would follow. To make it fair, the amount that had been withheld could be deducted from future death taxes that will come due. My point is, this deal is sellable. The bulk of the 'Panthers' would love it.”
Darn right, they would. The mob always loves free stuff. And you know darn well “the amount” withheld won’t be deducted from death taxes—whatever its deflated worth would be by then.
Just call some old thing “rich,” right, and get the gang to attack him? Why don’t you call Blankfein “rich” and attack him? Not doable? Greed and gang violence are always “sellable” when the mob outnumbers the victim, and the victim’s weak.
New economics is something, isn’t it? Just get a gang together and go after the people who paid for those benefits their entire working careers at top dollar and steal it from them and divide up the spoils.
You’re like a one-man central bank.
Check my bio. I am one who would lose out in this deal. You think it is ok for the Blankfeins of the worlds to collect an extra 15k a year they don't need? My guess is that LLoyd would sign up for this in a second. Bill Gates too. There are a lot of deep pockets out there that just do not need this. I want to protect the ones who do need it. A broad based cut back would hurt a lot of folks. Whats the sense of that approach?
"My guess is that LLoyd would sign up for this in a second. Bill Gates too."
You might be right, Bruce. The argument against it is, that the government doesn't give them (or others) the option. If you think digging into your "pockets" to "protect the ones who do need it" is ok, fine. If you can convince Lloyd and Bill, and others, fine. No one is stopping you. But don't ask the government to FORCE your values on others... who might not share them.
My suggestion is to remove the payroll taxes and eventually the Social Security taxes, also, if this is the way it’s going to play out. If Blankfein is going to be the scare that is used to sell this program, let’s take away his billions that he got from other taxpayer burglaries and let him live on his Social Security.
When the Democrats say “rich,” they always sweep down to the $150,000 level or lower. But even Democrats are smart enough not to mention the $150,000. And I’m not too sure the “grey panthers” would go for this—confiscation always has a tendency to sweep lower.
The basis of the argument is this: Social Security was forced on Americans by the Roosevelt administration, sold as government help when the skies were dark—no one had a choice. And, of course, “government help” in the Roosevelt administration meant the same thing it means in the Obama administration—i.e., the government stealing money from taxpayers to give to political supporters of the administration.
Many people would love to opt out of Social Security, including young people who are working and trying to save and don’t trust the system. But it is a government mandate backed by the full force of police power, namely that ye shall have this 15% removed from your paycheck up to $106,800 in earned income and, then, some day down the road it will be returned to you (maybe), worth considerably less because the government will have used it to pay its ill-conceived debts through inflation.
It’s a Faustian bargain. It is the dictator ruling again whose property shall be stolen. Wasn’t there a contract with the people, established by the Roosevelt administration, that Social Security would be a “trust fund” for retirement? Is there nothing left of trust in this government?
Bruce, you haven't answered my question about the math behind this. I don't think 5 years of Social Security benefits from people over 65 who are making over $150K in earned income is enough to cover all payroll taxes for a year, not even close.
You also haven't addressed why you think businesses would make long-term hiring decisions based on a one year benefit.
Eliminate payroll taxes entirely forever. Replace government revenues with tax on land and land only based on open fair auction bidding. That means taxing the property that religious institutions occupy.
Abolish the Fed. Give control of money back in the people.
Eliminate input taxes on activities like the fabrication of wind and solar energy.
Eliminate all duties and tarrifs.
If we restrict the ability of government to confiscate our labor and out wealth then they will be forced to restict thier spending. Failing that, let them go.
Begin with throwing out all incumbents no matter the party line.
Here in Kansas, the state unemployment taxes (my business pays) will more than double for next year. They went up 500+% for me in the early 90s. So I would hang on to any SS tax cuts in order to fund my state taxes rising.
Here in Kansas, the state unemployment taxes (my business pays) will more than double for next year. They went up 500+% for me in the early 90s. So I would hang on to any SS tax cuts in order to fund my state taxes rising.
Here is the solution I came up with, tackling the real problem at its roots. What I didn't write in that letter is the amount of tax receipts that would come back into the coffers. There are so many benefits to it, but our leaders are mentally retarded.
March 6, 2009
Real Hope for America in a Real Solution
Here we are, near the end of the first quarter of 2009, and we seem to be no closer to solving the economic duress that started many quarters ago. The first warning shots were fired over the bow when the two, now defunct, Bear Stearns funds imploded.
I sit here on a daily basis, watching as all the key government officials offer up useless programs that do absolutely nothing to stem the tide and tackle the root problem where it lies, the consumer. They want to spend money on pet projects, using the situation as leverage, assuring us that all these programs will work. Meanwhile, the layoffs and foreclosures continue, in a spiraling negative feedback loop with no end in sight.
The Fed has taken the stance of propping up financial institutions, sending check after check to companies that are reeling from the leverage applied to packaged mortgages. Why are these structures underwater in the first place? The first answer is leverage, but the key to this all is the consumers ability to pay back these loans, which leads to the point of how to stop this fiasco from going any further.
So far the Fed has failed to apply water to the fire, they are attempting to keep the building down the block from catching on fire and even that is not working. If they are not careful, they will run out of water and the city will burn to the ground. Instead of pumping money into banks at near nil interest rates, taking these hemorrhaging assets as collateral, why not offer anyone with a current mortgage a 1%, 30 year fixed rate mortgage? Is it not the same thing? The obvious difference is it helps the root problem at the consumer level. Giving money to banks is not working; people are still having a hard time with their current terms. Allowing a consumer to refinance, immediately provides relief and shores up housing as foreclosures will largely cease.
In this plan, the government will assume the note, which recapitalizes the lending institutions the proper way. The government still has the right to foreclose on non-performing loans, but how many people will walk on a one-time rate of 1%? For the people that are considering walking on notes because their houses are worth less than they owe, this is a game changer.
You may ask how will the government afford to lend all this at 1%? Will they make any money at all? I would ask the question how much will the government lose to all the banks by taking on these failing assets as collateral if this program isn’t made available? These assets will continue to erode until the consumer is given this type of relief. Everybody wins with this program. Without it, the tax base will continue to contract as we head further into a depression.
This plan actually puts real money in American households pockets, money to pay off debts, money to save and invest and money to spend in the economy. For example, a $180,000 house that currently has a 30 year 6.5% rate, has a monthly note of $1,137.72. If that borrower opted in to this offer, that same note would be $578.95. That is a savings of $558.77 each and every month for that household, or $6,705.24 a year. That is real stimulus.
This program does not give away free money, it still requires financial payment and responsibility, and will ultimately not cost the taxpayer a dime. It recapitalizes the banks by paying off the current notes as the government assumes the mortgage thus ceasing the destruction from leveraged losses. This in turn will free up available credit from lending institutions so people can once again borrow to start new businesses, grow existing businesses, make payrolls, and replace old vehicles. It is all as simple as an interest rate change to the consumer. This program stops the destruction of wealth, stops foreclosures and falling housing values and ultimately stops job losses as consumers are recapitalized; the consumers that represent 70% of GDP. But most importantly, this program offers real hope. Is Washington listening?
Read my lips: Negative Feedback Loop
Won't help. The problem is the Federal Reserve's destruction of the currency through debt. No tax cut, or bailout or government program will help. The solution is to abolish the Fed, abolish the IRS, repudiate the debt, and move back to a sound money system that can not be manipulated by central bankers. How many think that will happen?