This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Best Thing to Happen to America in a Long Time
It’s hard to describe how happy I am to see Walmart facing a slump. I’m delighted to see that the cause of Walmart’s problem is the 2% increase in Social Security withholding taxes.
It’s not just Walmart that is feeling the pinch from higher payroll taxes. According to today’s WSJ (link) damn near every company that has a retail sales base is getting nicked.
We are witnessing what happens when tax rates go up. There is (new) definitive evidence that raising taxes decreases consumption. That notion is an old one, but I think the reality that is now being proven out in real time has to make a difference in how people think about taxes, government spending and the real economy.
Who is responsible for the increase in payroll taxes that is causing all the damage? Don’t blame the evil Republicans for this one. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party INSISTED that payroll taxes had to go up on January 1. Want to blame someone for the slump in retail? Blame Harry Reid (D-NV).
Why would liberal Democrats want to whack their base with higher taxes? Easy answer. Because they love Social Security more than anything else. They would sacrifice anything, including the economy and their political base, to protect SS from the criticism that it was no longer “Off budget and self financed”.
What an idiotic position. And now those who fought to get the full 12.4% tax reinstated are going to have to pay the price. The evidence is overwhelming; higher payroll taxes hurt the economy.
I've felt alone the past 4 years while writing articles on a weekly basis trying desperately to make the point that SS is at the heart of America’s economic problems. I have been vindicated. The ranks of those who will point fingers at SS is going to swell. Those apposed are now going to include all of the big retailers (and their shareholders). That will be a tremendous boost for those who are crying for substantial changes in America’s biggest entitlement program. I can’t wait for ‘them” to publicly come on-board to the opposition.
We are living with a program that was designed 75 years ago. Everything has changed – but not SS. The assumptions that were used in the 1930’s are no longer valid today. The ratio of workers to beneficiaries has fallen by 70%. The ratio of worker’s income to GDP has fallen steadily (the rise of the robots). We have substantial changes in expected life. The most significant challenge to SS is the Baby Boomers. Not one of the Boomers was a twinkle in the eye when SS was created.
1935 Plymouth - the year SS was created
America is driving a 77-year-old car. The car is dangerous. It has none of the modern safety devices; it burns leaded gas and has asbestos brake pads. It weighs twice as much as a new car, and only gets 8 miles to the gallon. Yet a small portion of the Deciders in D.C. have blocked any chance of bringing SS up to date, and making it safe to drive for the next 20 years.
The Social Security Trust Fund has said that to “fix” SS would require an immediate and permanent increase in PR taxes of 2.2% (above the 12.4% today). Based on the evidence of the past few months it’s easy to conclude that a tax increase of that magnitude would push the economy into a recession – Once in a slump, the economy would be hard pressed to recover.
Not only would higher PR taxes kill the economy, it would hurt lower paid workers the hardest. The evidence from Walmart reconfirms the fact that SS taxes are very regressive. They hurt the base of people that the liberals claim they are trying to protect. How can Senator Reid defend that outcome? He can’t.
There is an alternative. It would mean that we would have to junk the old clunker and get new, safe, energy efficient car. The new car would be expensive, but the payoff would be worth it.
SS taxes can’t be eliminated. The program is too big and very hard to unwind and IT IS needed. But SS taxes could be reduced by 3% if changes were made (Employer taxes would remain the same, worker’s payroll tax would fall from 6 to 3%).
The changes required to achieve the reduction in taxes have been discussed for years. There has to be changes in age eligibility over a longer period of time. Changes to inflation adjustments have to be made. There has to be an immediate means tax on benefits to fill the Baby Boomer bucket. The means test HAS to be based on both income AND assets. You can’t be a multimillionaire and get SS checks. That has to stop. Now. SS is, and always has been insurance. If you don’t need the insurance, you don’t get paid.
IMHO if individual payroll taxes were cut 50% from the current level, the economy would prosper. Unemployment would fall, incomes would rise. Federal tax revenues would increase, in the process, the deficits would fall. A permanent reduction in payroll taxes is the only chance I see for a sustained expansion of the economy.
So to the Execs at Walmart, and all of those other retailers that are feeling the SS pinch, I say "Welcome to the club". You can be the wind behind the sails for the changes that are needed. Just this once I will say that what is good for Walmart, is also good for America.
Note: Stan Druckenmiller (ex Duquesne Capital) was on TV last night with Maria Bartiromo . Stan is a very sharp guy. He said the same as I have. It’s idiotic that he gets a check from SS. The $200k he might get back in his life is not going to change his spending one bit. But it would make a world of difference to those who are making $40k a year. The Zero Hedge link to the Druckenmiller interview: Link
&
- advertisements -








If you look closely at the American economy, that is how it works.
"We can share a brew and laugh at all the suckers who are working for a living."
In a world of machines powered by oil, robots and cheap Asian labor, don't be so sure your labor is worth anything. According to the "free market" anyway.
there is a difference bicycle. The younger generations are guaranteed to get less than they paid in. You change the terms of the deal and the deal should be off. The only question remaining is are people going to do anything about it or just sit there and deal with it.
"The younger generations are guaranteed to get less than they paid in."
Says, who? Brucie?
Suppose the stock market or real estate market don't deliver over the next 40 years? You want a refund? If a war breaks out and your family gets killed, you gonna file a suit?
Your generation is going to face all kinds of problems and you'll solve them. Or not. This fight is a loser. Your efforts are better spent elsewhere.
I am not forced into the stock market or real estate market.
If I am forced into the same system as everyone else all I ask is the same deal everyone else gets.
To be honest I don't have a dog in this fight. I am expecting to get pain in full in worthless dollars. I don't really give a shit.
edit - I meant "paid" in full but I will leave pain. It actually makes more sense anyway.
As far as worthless $$ goes, the baby boom generation is more stuck than you are. You can still earn wage income. All the boomers have are some rapidly devaluing or at least very volatile assets, pensions that may disappear and SS.
Everyone is in this boat. If schadenfreude is your thing, then good times are coming.
young vs old. poor vs middle class....yup it's comments like that make me realize people really are fucking clueless. I guess it is good to know ahead of time that it really is everyone for themselves when it gets bad. TPTB must love knowing that we will be too busy attacking each other for their scraps rather than attcking them.
fonzannoon said:
Empirical evidence suggests that, for many people, the cranium contains little more than a brain stem paired with a ganglial clump just big enough to contain a bad attitude.
Picture the biggest ever crap fight on Monkey Island, except it's a planet instead of an island.
You have to give them credit for the elaborate multi-dimensionality (generational, political, geographical, religious, sexual, ethnic/racial, socio-economic) of their divide and conquer strategy. That they have tactical plans at their disposal to divide and pit against each other any arbitrary pair of human beings is a mark of their dedication.
Vooter - you have to trust me on this - there is no money with your name on it. It was spent years ago. That's history. The question is, What are you going to do about it?
I'm going to collect one way or the other, that's what I'm going to do. And I'm sure that's what a lot of other people are going to do, too. Jimmy Burke explains it best:
http://youtu.be/WchpzmtYIHg
If you have a job,a 2.2% is not going to be a LARGE enough hit, to stop 98% of most people from shopping.(IMHO)
At $20k a year, that is less than $500.00 a year,$60.00+/- a month.
Much less drag us into a recession.(since that is not possible since we have BEEN in a Depression since '08.)Some states do not know it.
Plus tons of folks making 20k+/- a year are getting OmaMao's handouts R & L.
"I'm going to collect one way or the other, that's what I'm going to do."
Amen brutha.
@ Bruce: I agree with you that it was all spent long ago. It is not realistic or even rational to believe I will recoup one cent of what I was forced at the point of a gun to put in. Most of my contributions were not connected to payroll taxes at all, but self-employment taxes. And like Vooter, I'm PISSED. Like Vooter, I intend to get it back.
The payroll tax should not have been cut in the first place because in essence it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Social Security will be bankrupt sooner because of this short term approach to stimulating the economy. Was not Social Secirty meant as a safety net for the elderly?The whole system is falling apart though and maybe we should just admit it.
Cutting income tax rates would certainly make more sense if you want to stimulate the economy much like Romney advocated. Good luck getting that passed.
News flash: Social Security is ALREADY bankrupt because Ronnie and George the 41st, Billy Bob and George the 43rd, and now Barry have robbed SSI to pay well....someone and everyone. That's how we had the Clinton "budget surplus" and the reason we only say we're $16.6T in the hole instead of a number with one more digit.
News flash: SS can never be BK as most of the system is pay as you go. And you're going to keep paying.
News flash: It has been discovered that you can't get blood out of a turnip. Details at 11.
News flash: The IRS has perfected the business of getting blood from turnips. It's called getting "juiced".
Cutting income taxes on the high earners doesn't stimulate the economy, though, because the folks with high incomes are already consuming whatever they want.
Cutting income taxes on the LOW earners might be helpful, because they spend every dollar they earn, but already there's a pretty well-entrenched (albeit false) meme about how the poor don't pay any taxes, so it'd be tough to accomplish.
This is a fallacy. GDP is C+I+G+X. Shifting money from G (government spending) to C (consumption) is no better for the economy than shifting money from G to I (Investment). In fact, it's worse. Because only investment spending leads to increased output which creates new wealth.
Putting money into the stock market is "investment" in the same way buying crack cocaine every weekend is "therapy."
Maybe another auto or iphone manufacturing plant will help the economy? I doubt it.
How does increased output create new wealth if you can't sell the output you've already got? There's too much industrial capacity now.
He neglected to mention that the new investment is taking place in China, Feral Serf, which is why we need FAIR TRADE instead of FREE TRADE.
Free Trade = America gets screwed.
With proper, equalizing tarrifs, all these vampires so eager to invest in 3rd world manufacturing wouild quickly learn just how important being able to sell your goods in this markt really is. When they could no longer gorge themselves on fatter profits from their imported goods and services, those investments would pour back here.
This is by far the largest economy in the world, and we are standing by and letting a bunch of fat-cat, multi-national blood suckers bleed it dry.
As far a Bruce is concerned, you can take the boy out of Wall St., but you can't take the Wall St. out of the boy.
Want to fix SS. End the limit on withholdings, which now stop at $113K. Bingo. Problem solved.
End the limit on withholdings, which now stop at $113K. Bingo. Problem solved.
Oh, come on. That doesn't solve anything--it's just another tax increase. We're still running deficits, and we will be no matter how you jigger with the tax code.
The ONLY problem with SocSec is that we lie to ourselves about it. IF it is a social safety net for senior citizens we want out of the workforce (and that's what I believe it is, myself), there's no reason at all to be sending checks to folks who are rich. IF it is a universal "investment and retirement" fund, we need to scrap it completely, because it's a shitty deal.
So can we start by agreeing to be honest about what it is, and ignore all the bullshit marketing promises we've heard over the years?
On top of all this, wait until the "sequester" hits. 800,000 people getting hit with a 20% reduction in pay for six months. I will end up having to take one day off a week frm mid April to mid September. I am not one of them six figure government workers, this is going to hurt me and every one I know pretty hard. As far as spending is concerned, I have been spending very little since about August 2012, planning for this. Necessties only, no luxuries at all. Result is probably enough money in the bank to make it if I keep my spending wya reduced. But I am a single guy, a lot of these people hae families. I do not envy them.
As for social security, I am 51 and do not expect to see a dime of the huge amount of money I have paid in over the last 33 years or so. I expect I will die working.
Get used to it and don't look for any sympathy from me. I am 10 years older than you, and I have been living in reduced circumstances since 2007, when my job went overseas and they fired all the medical transcriptionists at the hospital I worked for, replacing them with cheap Indian labor. I had to sell my house because I couldn't make the mortgage anymore. I knew one woman, older and single like myself, who committed suicide because that was all she had ever done, had no idea how she could make her way anymore, and was mortified when her car was repossessed. Not surprisingly, the Indians couldn't deliver on their promises. They couldn't make the turn-around times because their power is unreliable and the quality of their work is frankly atrocious. Because English wasn't their mother tongue, they found it next to impossible to understand the English of those who spoke with the accents of other languages. The hospital work came back here, but the hospitals didn't want to carry transcriptionists on their payroll and so contracted with agencies like the one I work for. What a racket. I'm an independent contractor, which is the loophole they use to avoid paying minimum wage. I get paid literally pennies a line for what I produce. I am making substantially less than half of what I made in 2007, and mostly not even minimum wage and they keep upping our quotas, so I have to work longer hours, for which I don't, of course, make overtime. I wouldn't be able to afford to live on my own, unlike 2007, when I was independent.
Lucky for me, my daughter and her family were also feeling the pinch and had extra room, so we consolidated households and it has worked out well for both of us. At least we can make the housekeeping and run cars. We still eat pretty well and the kids have decent clothes for school, but I haven't seen a doctor in 5 years. Welcome to the new normal.
Not looking for, or asking for sympathy. Just stating a fact, a lot of folks are going to have to start living in austerity soon. Until last year, I had not seen a doctor since 1987. I only went because of one high blood pressure reading which got me on limited duty at work. If it had not been for that I would not have bothered.
I am only living single because my wife told me she wanted a divorce last year. Has not happened yet, we do not hate each other, and since she does the same work as I do, I foresee her wanting me back before too long. Once that happens, everything will be A-Okay.
How nice for you.
Hang in there.
Best to get used to a lower standard of living anyhow. It is coming one way or another.
Your sentiments on SS and working are pretty much the same as mine. The world is heading for some serious changes. Anyone who thinks this can be played gradually out over decades is dead wrong. The current course we are locked onto guarantees some shock and awe along the way.
It will be gradual in the same sense as tectonic forces building up until there's a "sudden" earthquake.
Bruce you said: "We are witnessing what happens when tax rates go up. There is (new) definitive evidence that raising taxes decreases consumption"
Nonsense
see this: Public Recreation Centers Looking to Stem Exodus
Under Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the city has made fighting obesity and improving public health one of its top priorities.
But pricing decisions by the parks department resulted in a 45 percent drop in paid memberships at its recreation centers, essentially city-run health clubs where New Yorkers who cannot afford memberships at expensive gyms, can work out. In an effort to raise revenue, the department doubled its annual fees a year and a half ago, to $150 for recreation centers with pools, and $100 for those without.
The department had projected a decrease of 5 percent in memberships in the first year after the fees doubled; instead, almost half of the adult and senior members did not renew. Similarly, the department had hoped to realize $4 million in new revenue, but in fact, it lost about $200,000.
******
Bruce - what does this mean to you? this is $75 going to $150 PER YEAR or $6.00 per month change!
to me --- it means that the low end of the food chain is under enormous pressure / challenge given the lack of compensation increases /inflation in cost of living - over the last 30 years which is why - they are now focused on minimum wage rate increases
so it is NOT about SS taxes - its about severe limitations in disposable income cash flow in general !
try and be honest in your posts - Bruce - rather than take selective facts with contrived intrepretations to promote a preconceived objective
give the money back to Peterson for this months stipend !
I don't get your comment. You say:
it means that the low end of the food chain is under enormous pressure
Okay, I agree. So why crush the bottom of the rung with more regressive taxes so guys like Druckemiller (and me) can get a check? I can't believe that you are okay with that plan, given the way you write.
FYI I've never had any contact with the Peterson folks. I come to my thinking on my own. My plan works against my best interests as I would lose benefits.
I'm willing to write a check for $250,000 to see to it that someone else who does needs benefits, gets them in full. It's the right, and only thing to do.
bk
PS On the "nonsense" thing. Take that up with WSJ and Walmart. I'm just repeating the facts....
lower age to 57, will free up jobs and disability would disapear...win win....and raise the ss tax too...it should be 15%
the point is NOT taxes as the focus but expanding - marginal income - across the board which would take care of any deficit - beggar thy neighbor isnt getting anyone anything - expand the National Income by restricting the ability to dump into this market via the WTO and restore tariffs to 40% as in 1994
whether its taxes or gym fees or wallmart volume its all the same - ability to spend - nothing more - for the middle class and anyone up to $350k it's the same for all just dfferent levels of pain
solution is: get out of the war business especially wars without being financed -
there is NO deficit problem - only a decision problem - you are playing into Peterson mime even if you protest the relationship - get into the disposable income problem as the focus
I do not agree.
Government policies -
create an insurance / ponzi / welfare scheme to protect seniors from poverty in old age
create another to cover their medical costs
create another to cover people without skills, education and drive enough to provide for their own living expenses
spend more than you take in for generations, by borrowing and printing money to cover the difference
endlessly expand the scope, dimension and intrusion of government -
created all these problems Bruce lists, and lots more.
Greater government intrusions such as -
restore tariffs to 40% as in 1994, and start up an international trade war of counter-tariffs by our trading partners, reducing worldwide trade and punishing the foreign poor
increase taxes on capital gains, and punish savers / investors even more
increase taxes above $1 million (income), and drive wealthy US taxpayers overseas like Depardiu and Tina Turner went elsewhere to escape higher rates
cut the prices on Pharma by 50% to world levels, and reduce employment / investment in research by Pharma of US citizens, increasing unemployment
cut the oil and gas subsidies (I'm guessing exploration costs?) and reduce drilling and oil supply in US -
will not solve the problems that intial government intrusions created; coercion is prelude to blowback, and creates new problems to add to the existing.
You will not increase "National Income" (whatever that is) by more rules, regulations and policies: you MIGHT by reducing existing government intrusions, and letting individuals maximize their returns without punitive taxation, coercion and regulations.
SS was a noble idea, ruined by changing demographics, changing actuarial experience, massive societal changes and other, noble ideas gone haywire through well-meaning perversions by ignorant legislation. More legislation and programs will not cure the disease that bigger government created; personal responsibility and discipline might.
There IS a deficit problem, and along with the national debt, it is tremedous. Denial and tinkering at the edges will not fix it; repudiation and repair might mitigate it somewhat. Peterson did not steal your SS money, everyone who voted in Congress to expand SS and the Great Society programs did, along with those who elected and re-elected them. Disposable income is only a problem because the government takes so much of it.
You cannot solve a problem within the same mindset that created it. We decided decades back that a noble, Great Society would not turn its back on the poor, elderly and weak, even if they could not, would not and did not manage to take care of themselves.
We also decided that the funds necessary to provide for these programs were too much taxation for the economy to bear; but we did not address how this disparity would be reconciled. Now, the true costs of these programs are becoming apparent; and we are obligated into bankruptcy, as long as nothing changes.
Change will now come, whether or not we want it. Doubling down on past failed policies will not improve things.
the taxes - in the 1950's 60 & 70's were substantially higher and the growth rate for labor and GNP was NOT effected
in fact higher tax rates induce the business to spend more on the business to avoid taxation which helps labor
the seniors today were expected to be here in 1965 - so there is no surprise - what is a surprise was the multiple wars for no gain and no reason for which were not funded -
we have a situation today that republicans created - wars unfunded / tax cuts hurt the balanced budget - lack of republican regulation created banksters fraud end to end systemically which destroyed wealth of the middle class
all in all less government is not the solution nor is austerity - we need to go in the opposite direction
But the world has changed, in ways the planners of 1950 - 1980 could not have anticipated. Remember Bill Gates' "No one will never need a computer with more than 640K of RAM?" (He now denies ever having said that; but the idea is the same). Plus, in the 50's - 60's no one else could compete with us - they were still rebuilding from WWII.
" higher tax rates induce the business to spend more on the business to avoid taxation which helps labor" Why wouldn't they use more automation and reduce labor needed, since payroll is often the highest expense of a business? Or just relocate to a lower-tax regime, like CA businesses currently moving to TX (on a national scale, if desperate)?
We haven't had a balanced Federal budget since I've been alive, so the blame the Red team or the Blue team is useless. The Red team spends on the MIC, the Blue team spends on welfare, social programs and government growth, so neither is innocent.
You don't need to have austerity if the government doesn't eat more than 20% of GDP. Less government means less fraud, waste and abuse; are you against this as well?
We are already running $1.3 Trillion dollar deficits - where will the additional spending come from?
Yes sir! Got got it nailed.
This can never be said often enough or laoudly enough:
SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE BY DEFINITION AGAINST THE COMMON INTEREST.
Congress has allowed itself to be pushed around by moneyed interests, when the opposite should be the case. Corporations should not be given incentives to do the right things. They should be given dis-incentives if they don't do the right things.
Want to establish your corporation in the Bahamas...fine. We should slap heavy, punitive restrictions on those who decide to do so and make it very hard to do business in America.
Want to leave your profits parked in a foreign subsidiary? OK, but there should be a heavy cost associated with playing that game when you try to bring products back in the U.S.
Want to build a new factory in Thailand...sure, go ahead, but first you might want to see the new tariff structure.
We need leadership with brains and balls. Instead, we get a bunch of pandering, self-serving jackals.
Oh really. Do you lock your doors at home when you go to bed? Do you close your garage doors? My guess is that you do - to protect your family and your possessions.
So, why exactly is it wrong if we do this at the borders to protect our manufacturing base?
You bet we have some huge problems that need fixing, but the number one problem is JOBS. A fully employed workforce with good paying factory jobs would erase most of our ills, both financial and societal. Most people would much prefer to have a job than to live on the dole,
I mostly agree, but there are problems in implementation.
You may be aware that the Soviets built cars. They were clunky, ran poorly and cost too much (for what they were). Foreign cars were not allowed in to compete in large numbers, but only for Party members in high stations. The Soviet car companies were bloated, inefficient and built vehicles that few really wanted or liked. Competition destroyed the state-owned car companies when the Soviet empire collapsed; competition they could not match.
How do we implement protectionist trade policies without creating our own Soviet industries? I'm not in total disagreement, mind; if dumping (selling prices below production costs, subsidising the difference by slave labor or other nefarious practices) is involved, tariffs might be appropriate. But how / who / where is this decided? By the same folks in government who rely on campaign contributions for re-election? By the nameless bureaucrats who do not manufacture anything, and do not know what production costs are?
I don't have a good answer, but would be interested in hearing yours.
OK...really not that complicated, but would take a little math and computer skills, which seem to be abundnately available to Wall St. Algo writers.
We actuyally have a harmonized tarrif code now, with variable duty rates for different countries, classes of goods, and different price points, etc. For instance, if I bring in a machine made vase, and the cost is under $3.00, the duty rate is 22%. If it is between $3-5.00, the duty is 15%, and over $5 it is 7.5%. This is to help protect what is left of domestic glass production....much appreciated in Ohio and other primarily Mid-western states where we still have glass factories.
It is not all that more difficult to assign a relative value, a point system perhaps, for things like average wages, social safety net, defense spending, etc, on a country by country basis.
For the sake of discussion, let's say that Indonesia has a total point off-set of 32%. This would indicate that a factory in Indonesia would have a 32 point advantage selling their widgets in this market. If all of a sudden we started to collect an extra 32%, the playing field is again leveled for American factories, who must pay a minimum wage, provide SS & Medicare, comply with OSHA, and so on....you know, all those things we decided we wanted.
By assigning points to a country rather than an industry, it would cut down on the influence industry lobbyists would have to sway the tariffs. It would also incentivize countries to raise up their living standards to reduce their point offset. Quite a bit different than the race to the bottom we have now.
This is rough, but hopefuly you get the idea.....and I hear a cocktail and dinner calling 11B40. The major point, however, is that the pie is only so large, and we have had the biggest slice for a long time. The only way that others grow theris is for us to reduce ours.....and brother, we have been on a starvation diest for a couple of decades now. The morality of a fat America and a skinny 3rd world is a different discussion, but given the opportunity to vote on it, how do you think the electorate would cast their ballots?
Have a good weekend, E.D.
SOUNDS reasonable - are there lobbyists involved?
Remember Slick Willie creating the Escalante Grand National Staircase National Park - so the future generations would benefit from preserved wilderness, and NOT because the low-sulfur coal underneath would compete with the Indonesian Riady family interests, who were big campaign contributors to Slick Willie?
Still, the idea has merit, if it could be done objectively - do you think that is how it's done now?
Thanks for a sane, rational discussion. Enjoy your cocktail and dinner! And let's think about how to expand that pie - space mining, anyone?
Have a GREAT weekend, 11b40!
There would still be competition inside the nation to spur innovation.
Tarriffs aren't the answer. Smoot-Hawley tarrifs made the great depression worse. The answer isn't jacking up everyone else's cost basis to our inflated cost basis. The answer is to reduce our cost basis. This involves defaulting on public debt, cutting public spending, cutting taxes and getting the market failure out of the healthcare system.
"The answer isn't jacking up everyone else's cost basis to our inflated cost basis."
100% WRONG! That is precisly the problem. Where does our "inflated cost basis" come from?
Well maybe it comes from our bloated defense spending that so many of our competitors hardly have on a relative basis.
Maybe it comes from our bloated FOR-PROFIT health care system that costs us about 2.5 times as much as the rest of the world pays....and does jnot even cover everyone.
Maybe it comes from the price of good schools, clean air & safe water, a solid nationwide transpotation system, trustworthy police & fire protection, a social safety net, mimimum wage, a pretty good court system, health and safety regulations in the workplace......you know, all tose things jthat make living here so desirable.
Unfortunately, we have been infected with a brand of psycopaths who think that is is just fine to rip out all the jobs and send the the manufacturing tax base to foreign lands to enhance the bottom lines of multi-national corporations. Blood sucking parasites who would bring goods here made by virtual slave labor to compete with and destroy the American workforce, all the while screaming free trade.
Bullshit - and fuck you. Fair Trade. How about that? I have watched industry after industry sucumb to blatant attacks by foreign competition, subsidized by foreign governments, fall, and the jobs here vanish because of the notion of "Free Trade". Anyone whow believes that the FREE TRADE wagon is bringing any net benegit to the average American is a fool, or a self-serving charlatan, or both.
Just ride around and witness the hollowing out of America. Stupid is as stupid does.
Where does our "inflated cost basis" come from?
I think it's mostly real estate valuations, myself. Housing costs are the primary expenditure for MANY households.
If your income problems would be "solved" because you squatted somewhere for free, you get an insight into how most "Third World" countries continue to function. A lot of regulars here have just never seen the kids from the local favela go scour the streets for refuse worth recovering and selling.
Make rent free and all problems are "solved." We return to the Third-World standard of living and can compete in the international marketplace.
If I didn't know better, I would swear David Stockman wrote this piece. :/
So you have been vindicated? Now what? I say hire Betty White!
You're right, of course: government is the worst place to spend money for you. If you want to have a thriving society, let the people keep most of what they earn and allow them to trade amongst themselves as freely as possible. As long as no one is getting harmed in the transaction, then let it be.
But I do hope you realise that having big-time CEOs complain about increased taxes on the little guy is a two-edged sword. If you're going to get a spokesperson for this movement, it should be someone like Betty White. She is in touch with senoirs, makes them laugh. But if she came out and said that we need means testing for SocSec, then they would listen. It can be assumed that she doesn't need the money, as many seniors don't as well.
Above all else, keep AARP out of it. Go directly to the root.
:D
" If you're going to get a spokesperson for this movement, it should be someone like Betty White. She is in touch with senoirs (sic), makes them laugh. But if she came out and said that we need means testing for SocSec, then they would listen. It can be assumed that she doesn't need the money, as many seniors don't as well."
You honestly think people are going to be talked out of their insurance proceeds? LOL. Get away from your computer for a few minutes and go ask them yourself. They are more rabid than the 2nd amendment people. Any politican touching this issue is DOA. Ask Rick Parry. When Bush II said he wanted to privatize SS, he got his head shoved up his ass.
Good luck.
Bruce
Calculate how many Private Sector employees are needed to work just to carry 1 Government Employee (including Pensions) and you will see why this economy cannot have real growth.
And another quibble. "The ratio of worker’s income to GDP has fallen steadily (the rise of the robots)" Ignoring the outsourcing of American jobs by using the Red Herring of robots is just a fabricated fad introduced by TPTB.
Regards
K
"It’s hard to describe how happy I am to see Walmart facing a slump. I’m delighted to see that the cause of Walmart’s problem is the 2% increase in Social Security withholding taxes."
Getting desperate? The 2% stays.
Kayman it varies but in general it is about 2.2 private sector jobs lost for every 1 government job created.
Bruce - The ratio of worker’s income to GDP has fallen steadily (the rise of the robots).
Problem solved... have the robots pay into SS.
The robots owners.