Gold & Silver Predictions

In , on 05/01/2011
at 08:46 PM, "Nick Knight" said:

Let's ask this to anyone who wants to argue. If someone offered you a
million dollars to move to Europe or the Bahamas, or Fiji ... would you do
it?

Sorry, I made a mistake. This isn't a one time payment ... you'd get 1
million dollars every year you stayed there. Where "staying there" means
that is your residence of record, but you can travel anywhere you want.

Nick

On 5/1/2011 9:01 PM, A. Nony Moose wrote:
""Roßert G. wrote in message
...

Otherwise, removing the salary cap makes sense and also not increasing the
payout year after year would help as well.

You argument is based on the fallacy that most people wouldn't collect SS on a
need-based formula.


The same "fallacy" that the Federal Income Tax, as originally proposed,
would only apply to the top 1% or so of the population. We know how
that worked out. Once there is a formula for determining need, that
formula will be adjusted depending upon who is in power. With a liberal
regime, it will be structured to cover as many people they can find
including those who probably wouldn't qualify because "it is the right
thing to do". With a conservative regime, the pressure would be to cut
it as much as possible, much like the Medicaid debate going on now.
Either way, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, many people will
find themselves paying but not getting a benefit.

Give the politicians flexibility and they will bend it until it breaks.

""Roßert G. Schaffrath"" wrote in message
...
On 5/1/2011 9:01 PM, A. Nony Moose wrote:
""Roßert G. wrote in message
...

Otherwise, removing the salary cap makes sense and also not increasing
the
payout year after year would help as well.

You argument is based on the fallacy that most people wouldn't collect SS
on a
need-based formula.


The same "fallacy" that the Federal Income Tax, as originally proposed,
would only apply to the top 1% or so of the population. We know how that
worked out. Once there is a formula for determining need, that formula
will be adjusted depending upon who is in power. With a liberal regime,
it will be structured to cover as many people they can find including
those who probably wouldn't qualify because "it is the right thing to do".
With a conservative regime, the pressure would be to cut it as much as
possible, much like the Medicaid debate going on now. Either way, as sure
as the sun rises in the morning, many people will find themselves paying
but not getting a benefit.


Or getting a benefit without having to pay at all as do 40-50% of the
households who can deflect all taxes with deductions.

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 05/01/2011
at 08:46 PM, "Nick Knight" said:

Let's ask this to anyone who wants to argue. If someone offered you a
million dollars to move to Europe or the Bahamas, or Fiji ... would you do
it?

Sorry, I made a mistake. This isn't a one time payment ... you'd get 1
million dollars every year you stayed there. Where "staying there" means
that is your residence of record, but you can travel anywhere you want.

Nick

Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
Might as well killfile yourself..

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 05/01/2011
at 07:36 PM, "A. Nony Moose" said:

The solution is simple and already known to the Feds: raise taxes (esp. on
the top 2% of wage earners), eliminate the salary cap on Social Security
taxes, make Social Security need based (clearly people with a large
retirement income and accumulated wealth should not be receiving SS.)

So, here I am, about to participate in an off-topic political discussion.
However, I've wanted to comment on the niavety of people who seem to think
this is "the answer" and I have yet to find the right medium. Ha!

I am NOT in or near the "top 2%" of wage earners. However, if I were, I'd
have to wonder ... what extra do I get out of the government that warrants
paying them 30% of my millions/billions over someone who is paying $5-10k
a
year in taxes? The answer would be little to nothing. Why should someone
who has millions have to pay hundreds of thousands in taxes? If he makes
billions, is his "fair share" millions?

When folks split a dinner check, do they ask who makes more, figure out a
total and a percentage for each diner and split the bill that way? When
they go to the grocery store, does the billionaire pay more for tomatoes
than the normal housewife or middle manager? Why should they? Does
their
vote count extra? Their opinion? When they retire, is not their
theoretical return capped by social security to some max? Even if they
would pay millions? WHY would they pay millions? Particularly if your
suggestion gets considered and they never see a piddly cent?

I'm sure I can find a heated debated with the bleeding hearts about why
they
should. I'm not really interested in debate ... just want to express my
opinion and leave it at that. I'll simply say that I don't see it, and I
never will. It just doesn't make sense to tax billionaires at a high flat
rate for every additional dollar they make.

Let's ask this to anyone who wants to argue. If someone offered you a
million dollars to move to Europe or the Bahamas, or Fiji ... would you do
it? Mind you, you could visit the US and even continue to own and spend
all
the time you want in the house you own today. Lots of flexibility, but
you
get a million dollars. Or maybe it's a few hundred thousand, or a few
billion ... it certainly would be worth considering, eh? Well, that's
what
US businesses are doing, because other countries are taxing more
favorably.
Google, Microsoft ... it's "good, smart business" for them. I'm sure this
can work for individuals, too.

THAT'S what we want to do ... send the rich people and successful
businesses
to other countries. Yep, that's the solution.

A news story I heard yesterday on states raising taxes for high-income
residents cited studies showing that fears that the rich would move to
another state were baseless. Statistically, there was very little
difference in the "move out" rate for those whose taxes went up versus those
whose income was high enough to be just below the cut-off level for the tax
increase. So the avoidance of additional taxes is far outweighed by the
desire/need to live close to their businesses or jobs, plus the loss of
estblished social networks plus the hassle of moving.

So if the average high-income American isn't going to move one state over to
avoid a marginal state tax increase, how many do you think are going to
leave America altogether to avoid the marginal increase from additional
federal taxes? Perhaps a few, but that's all.

When I spend too much and have trouble covering my credit cards (and I do,
on occasion, and it's mostly because of an addiction to coins and stamps
and
old cars), I have to slap myself and make sure I spend less the next
month.
Or, put more pressure on my credit line. Until that runs out. I can't
expand my credit line just because I want to. I can't demand raises from
my
very profitable employer. I am responsible for my own spending and debt.
As is this country. How 'bout we fess up and pay the piper?

While there are many parallels between the principles of personal and
government finances, there are many important differences. An obvious one
is that your boss doesn't go arbitrarily slashing your salary income every
once in a while just to give himself a raise, whereas the rich periodically
give themselves a raise by pushing through tax cuts - which slashes
goverment income (and thereby causes substantial government revenue
shortfalls).

finally, cut spending on the military by ending this futile war in the
Mid-East and eliminating foreign aid.

Now there's something we can agree on.

Nick

In , on 05/02/2011
at 08:48 AM, "Bremick" said:

Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
Might as well killfile yourself..

And yet, you found the time to reply. Which fortifies my first, middle and
most recent impression of you.

Or, perhaps, just maybe, someone read the post and saw that I wasn't going
to argue it. Even more likely, I convinced folks that the original proposal
was Just Plain Dumb. Who knows. I don't care.

Should I thank you for your opinion? I'll pass.

Nick

In , on 05/02/2011
at 06:04 PM, "mazorj" said:

So if the average high-income American isn't going to move one state over
to avoid a marginal state tax increase, how many do you think are going to
leave America altogether to avoid the marginal increase from additional
federal taxes? Perhaps a few, but that's all.

If it's marginal, they won't. If they are suddenly paying SS tax on
millions? Well, moving a state over won't help. It's all a matter of
scale.

I forget which show I saw ... 60 minutes? 48 hours? Interviewing Google
and MS higher-ups, asking why they are moving operations to Europe. Mind
you, digital operations can go anywhere with little moving overhead. taxes
were the reason. You tax enough, and it becomes significant enough, people
will adjust.

But then I'm arguing. And Bruce says nobody's supposed to care.

Nick

In , on 05/02/2011
at 06:04 PM, "mazorj" said:

once in a while just to give himself a raise, whereas the rich periodically
give themselves a raise by pushing through tax cuts - which slashes
goverment income (and thereby causes substantial government revenue
shortfalls).

W-w-w-w-wait. A "raise" means they manage to keep more of the money that
they actually made? Funny. See, this is the lapse in logic that I find so
interesting. Just cut the irresponsible spending.

I'll killfile this thread now. If we could all argue logically, it would be
one thing. I just don't get into countering silliness as a prolonged
effort.

Nick

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 05/02/2011
at 08:48 AM, "Bremick" said:

Apparently no one cared about your "mistake" or your reluctant thoughts.
Might as well killfile yourself..

And yet, you found the time to reply. Which fortifies my first, middle
and
most recent impression of you.

Seems to me you've killfiled me in the past. Odd you could read my post.
Or are your killfile boasts just bluster?


Or, perhaps, just maybe, someone read the post and saw that I wasn't going
to argue it. Even more likely, I convinced folks that the original
proposal
was Just Plain Dumb. Who knows. I don't care.

If you didn't care, why bother to post at all?


Should I thank you for your opinion? I'll pass.

Please go killfile yourself.

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 05/02/2011
at 06:04 PM, "mazorj" said:

So if the average high-income American isn't going to move one state over
to avoid a marginal state tax increase, how many do you think are going
to
leave America altogether to avoid the marginal increase from additional
federal taxes? Perhaps a few, but that's all.

If it's marginal, they won't. If they are suddenly paying SS tax on
millions? Well, moving a state over won't help. It's all a matter of
scale.

I forget which show I saw ... 60 minutes? 48 hours? Interviewing Google
and MS higher-ups, asking why they are moving operations to Europe. Mind
you, digital operations can go anywhere with little moving overhead.
taxes
were the reason. You tax enough, and it becomes significant enough,
people
will adjust.

But then I'm arguing. And Bruce says nobody's supposed to care.

I said nobody apparently cares about what YOU think, since you don't seem to
care yourself.