Real Tax Cuts, Not an Obama ‘New Deal,’ Will Lift Economy

The part of the Obama plan that worries me the most is the "tax cut" for people who already pay no income taxes.

Part of the Obama "tax cut" includes the refund of withheld Social Security taxes.

The Social Security system is already predicted to be failing from under funding.

If withheld Social Security taxes are refunded now where will the money come from to pay promised benefits in the future?

Will those of us who have paid in for years and years then be asked to make even further contributions to the Social Security Ponzi system?

 

We also need to drill, build refineries, and nuke plants all of which will spur investment and create jobs. anything else is a non starter.

 

>The part of the Obama plan that worries me the most is the "tax cut" for people who already pay no income taxes.

"Income tax" is only a name for a tax on one's life energy just as as "payroll tax" is another name for a tax on the same life's energy. Every employer's books lists an account of employee costs. The employer doesn't care where the money goes. It is part of a total employee compensation package. All the money from the income tax and all the money from the payroll tax go into the treasury and are spent for current budget needs. In other words, different words are used in order to tax the same money twice. The stupid workers have been fooled into thinking that SS is some sort or personal savings account and that the employer "pays" half of it. No, in one case the employer pays the govt directly and in the other the employer credits and debits the employee before the employee gets his hands on the money.

The result is that even people with earned tax credits and who get 7% refund on their SS are still paying 7% income tax from their total compensation package. Where does the employer get "his" part of the 14% tax? The Tooth Fairy?

Second consequence is that YOU pAY income tax on your SS tax but the employer writes "his half off as a business expense. Does the government collect less total taxes because you employer writes off his employee costs? No, the government passes the tax on to you by raising your tax rate.

 

>The Social Security system is already predicted to be failing from under funding.

>If withheld Social Security taxes are refunded now where will the money come from to pay promised benefits in the future?

All government payments come from the same pot. The Treasury writes checks at the instruction of Congress. SS checks and military payroll checks come from the same source, the US Treasury. Why people cry about SS going broke but never the Army going broke?




>Will those of us who have paid in for years and years then be asked to make even further contributions to the Social Security Ponzi system?

Exactly to what do you think you "pain in" and why? So the govt gives you a list of the months you paid the SS tax. Would you be happier if the govt gave you a list of the months you paid income tax? Tax is a tax is a tax . . . .

Yes, current SS law is that SS retirement benefits are based on months and amounts. THAT is exactly why SS is not "insurance." It is 100% welfare. You don't "Pay" for any of it. There is no legal relationship between the tax and the benefit.

 

People complain about SS going broke and not the army because if SS goes broke they'll be seriously impacted in their own retirement. If the army goes broke we have to stop starting wars. That would be a good thing.

I've paid into SS for about 33 years. You're absolutely wrong. I did pay for my SS and I expect to get it. Something I paid for for 33 years is NOT WELFARE.

 

"government spending"
hasn't this been the complaint about the governement all along.

 

Don't worry. You will get your SS. Old people always vote and old people control the money.

 

I think this economist is wrong. I am no expert but tax cuts alone won't give the economy enough of a jolt. The rich and corporations won't spend any more or less based on taxes. Many average American's are out of work and those who are working are saving for rainy days.

The logic in the Obama plan is if we upgrade windows in federal buildings it will mean the window makers will have to make more windows. This means they will have to order the aluminum, rubber and the glass. Then you have the construction workers who will install the windows down to the lunch wagon driver who will bring them lunch at noon. I am hoping they also give good incentives to encourage the private sector to go green also.

My concern is that we make it mandatory for all materials must be American made. It will be self-defeating and a huge disaster if we buy the steel for the bridges from Japan etc...

 

Even though I don't want a nuclear bomb in my back yard I believe you are correct. Nuclear plants will be both green, put people to work and allow us to upgrade the power grid.

 

The paranoia that nuclear powered electric power generation plants are nuclear bombs is one reason we - through the AEC and then the NRC - made it impractical to build them. Now we're all caught up in "green" and "renewable" energy sources that just don't amount to an ant hill in a mountain range when it comes to being able to meet the nations energy needs. We need to drill for oil and mine for coal. We got plenty of it so let's use it. Meanwhile, we need to get busy building lots of nuclear power plants. Just let the private investors put their money into it with only limited regulation and it will get done. Get government in the middle of it and it'll take another generation to get the first few built and then at enormous costs. They'll have a staff of a 1,000 people including a bunch of resident government employees. Instead, Obama wants to build roads! For what - more gasoline and diesel powered automobiles? For what - to create jobs? Let industry create jobs by letting them keep more of what they're paying in taxes for social re-engineering projects. That'll stimulate the economy just fine.

 

That's the reason we invest in development, so we can get clean alternative energy to meet our energy needs.

Coal pollutes way too much so again, we need to invest in clean coal technology. If we broke ground on an oil well today it would be 10 years before we could count on it's output. Oil will soon become an archaic means of producing energy as we develop other alternatives.

I know Government can't guarantee a completely save nuclear plant but I believe it will be safer then leaving the private sector to build them unchecked. They will cut corners and use cheaper materials since their goal will be to turn a profit instead of building safe plants. I believe that's a formula for disaster.

1. No one is stopping industry today and you don't see jobs being created. In fact just the opposite, we are loosing half a million per month and Bush greatly cut their taxes.

2. The bridges and roads need to be improved. Just like the bridge in MO that feel down a couple of years back, we have many more that are in similar condition. The roads and bridges are something that need to be done so why not do them not.

3. Rebuilding the roads and bridges will help create the industry jobs you advocated since now they will have a consumer for their products.

4. The democrats are also demanding cleaner automobiles. It was the Republicans that wanted to loosen the standards since at this time, only the Japanese are meeting them. Mazda has a completely electric car that can go 400+ miles on a single charge. The American auto makers haven't come close to that.

 

Taxes are not "investments". Taxes take away investment potential from individuals.

Coal, oil, and natural gas are all fuels available right now. None is without some degree of pollution. All can produce lots of energy. The "green" and "renewable" energy sources just aren't practical replacements. None make it without government subsidies.

Nuclear powered electric generation plants are safe as they can practicably be and much safer than many other industries all around us today and much safer than many things we do just for fun every day. Government regulation didn't help make it any safer - it helped make it more expensive. A grade 5 bolt was 50 times more expensive - the same bolt - just to get the paper trail to "prove" the ingot from which it came. The industry was loaded with senseless and costly rules most often made by people with no clue about the technology. Like most government agencies all they really want to see is reams of paper.

People are slowing down right now because they feel panic by the very actions of government. This does nothing but aggravate the problem. Perfectly sound businesses in perfectly sound markets are holding back just because of what the government is doing and how people are reacting to it. The meddling thus far has done nothing but set the stage for more. The hogs are lining up for the feed. No one wants to be the last one holding the bag. Government has opened the door to a perceived out and advertised it widely.

Income taxes, inventory taxes, fuel taxes, sales taxes, etc. all work against the manufacture, transportation, storage, and exchange of goods and services. Only people that actually make something of value that some other people are willing to buy are helping. The government has just been living off the fat and now the hog is getting leaner.

There are always roads and bridges in need of repair. They do wear out. Let the cities and states take care of them. We don't need a massive increase in the highway infrastructure. If anything we might should consider investment in the railroad infrastructure. It is far more efficient and would get the trucks off the roads which are the source of most of the wear and tear.

Rebuilding roads won't do squat for the economy! It's nothing but a "new deal" make work program. We really don't need more freeways just to draw more cars. We need goods and services that people can buy for themselves. We don't need more workers in the highway department. We need more workers in private business. Don't tell me that government will bring that about by the purchases it makes because the money to do it is going to come from someone's pay check or from extra printed money that will lesson the value of yours and mine.

If General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler suffer their due course maybe Toyota or Honda could pick up some of the pieces and come closer to marketing even better automobiles. Maybe two of the big three could survive and be strong with the third one out of the way. If one man must suffer to loss of business because of a poor market, a bad choice, high costs, better competition, etc. then why shouldn't a larger company. Let them reap what they earn or pay for what they lose. The workers can find other work with other employers doing other things if that's what it takes. People have been doing that for centuries. That kind of "change" is a normal part of the ups and downs of civilization.

Electric cars have to be charged with electricity made somewhere. It takes a certain amount of energy to move a given mass a given distance in a given time. No work is done for free. There are no magic answers. There are opportunities to improve efficiency but the internal combustion engine is going to be a part of the motive power solution one way or another because something has to be burned to do the work.

Government isn't the answer and never has been. It is part of the problem - but not the answer.

 

You can't get blood out of a turnip. The Bush depression is going to sweep away Social Security and Medicare.

 

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

I like the railroad infrastructure suggestion. I would like to see us invest in high speed trains.

 

Main line freight railroad traffic is expected to double in the next 20 years or so. That's were the investment is needed and where the potential profit for private business can be. Most of the upgrades can be done on existing right of way. Coal, intermodal, grain, lumber, etc. are the profit makers. Some of my long term investments are in this area. High speed passenger railroad traffic is another matter altogether. I don't think there's enough profit potential in it for the very large investments that would be needed. We don't have the population density of some other countries and our society is highly dependent upon private automobiles for mobility. But there could be localized exceptions as there have been in the Northeast. As a public project it would be cheaper to build than more interstate type highways but that would mean getting government involved and I'm generally against that because it gets too political, costs to much, and isn't operated efficiently.