[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did the research on the definition of unfunded liability and no where in it’s definition was pension mentioned
[/quote]
Do you know what an “example” is? I used a pension as an example.
Imagine that…
Your so hell bent on being “right” about something you don’t understand the basics of you are making yourself look more and more wrong every time you post.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
In my opinion unfunded should be unforeseen
[/quote]
Also, your opinion means jack and shit.
I’ll be sure to write FASB and let them know some stoner in AZ thinks they shoudl change the rules.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Beans and I don’t always agree, for God sake he’s from New England, but Beans has helped me understand concepts that I learned and had to learn to get an undergraduate degree in accounting. He is very knowledgeable from what I’ve read on this particular subject.
You had to ask for the definition of an unfunded liability and you are not impressed with his knowledge base, why would you even say that?
If I were you I would take a few entry level economics courses and if you can a tax course or two. The things you say don’t make any sense to anyone that has even a marginal background in these matters.
I don’t understand you. Why are you pointing out shortcomings in others when you yourself have glaring shortcomings? [/quote]
Beans has also helped me grasp certain aspects , I would say the most after I researched my capital gains tax. I misunderstood the term 50% rate , I just signed and wrote the check:) . I understand it is not his job to inform properly and This is a debate forum . I just expected a more full disclosure when he defines a term that is specific to his expertise
[/quote]
Shouldn’t the onus fall on you to inquire further if you don’t fully understand a concept or for you to do your own research?
I took 2 tax course that covered hundreds of code sections and I am constantly asking questions. My wife has a M.S. in taxation and she still has to ask questions. I’m sure Beans has to research emerging tax issues as well, which is why I’m quick to point out your short comings here.
I would certainly respect your opinion more if you took the time to ask more questions/understand a concept on your own rather than insult another poster. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
[/quote]
I did the research on the definition of unfunded liability and no where in it’s definition was pension mentioned sure if some one were negligent enough not to include a know liability in it’s budget then it would be unfunded . In my opinion unfunded should be unforeseen
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you read the definition, but pensions are some of the largest unfunded liabilities I’ve learned about. The problem arises when that unfunded liability remains unfunded and increases over time.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I did the research on the definition of unfunded liability and no where in it’s definition was pension mentioned
[/quote]
Do you know what an “example” is? I used a pension as an example.
Imagine that…
Your so hell bent on being “right” about something you don’t understand the basics of you are making yourself look more and more wrong every time you post.
[/quote]
In my opinion you wanted to lead me to believe that was the definition . Why are pensions unfunded They know they owe them they know how much they owe it is a foreseeable expense ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
what is that over the next 100 years ?
[/quote]
LOL! It wouldn’t even pay for the next 10 years.
Egon von Greyerz, founder of Matterhorn Asset Management in Switzerland:
“U.S. debt is increasing by approximately $1.5 trillion per year. If you add to that the increase in unfunded liabilities, you get an increase, only in 2012, of $7 trillion.”
The $70 trillion represents the current entitlement debt and unfunded liabilities when calculated according to 'Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Some have calculated it much higher at $130 trillion.[/quote]
[/quote]
can you post a link , I am not quite sure by what you mean by unfunded liabilities ?
[/quote]
unfunded liabilities = debt you cannot cover given your current financial situation.
Like most government pension plans, and private pension plans as well. [/quote]
Thanks so unfunded Liabilities could be covering any one that suffered the effects of Agent Orange or the cops DEA breaking down the wrong Door ? feel free to list some examples
[/quote]
What are you talking about? DEA?
Jesus:
An Unfunded Liability:
a) Person a retired, and is due 1,100,000 in payments over the rest of their life based on actuarial tables and PV etc etc etc…
b) Company sets up a fund to pull from in order to make those payments. Based on FV calc’s the company, in year one puts 200k in the fund expecting it to grow over the life of the pension
The liability is short term funded, because they have 200k to cover one years payments, but long term is unfunded because they don’t have enough to cover the 1.1mil they owe the person based on the calcs. [/quote]
I am curious how broad a term unfunded liability is. It sounds as broad as they come
[/quote]
Unfunded liabilities are easiest to understand if juxtaposed with debt:
Debt is a function of past promises–promises (to make payments) that have already been made and that we are contractually obligated to make good on.
Unfunded liabilities are a function of future promises–the government’s obligation to pay health care and retirement benefits into the future. If you add up all of those obligations for the next 75 years and subtract from that the projected amount of tax revenue that will be collected by the IRS over that same span, there is a gap of about $87 trillion (the bad kind of gap, not the kind that means surplus).
Not good. However, the good thing about a 75-year projection is that small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by. Now we just need a President who’s willing to make those changes on a grand enough scale. Obama’s “everybody needs to pay their fair share” line sounds fine and all (and I am with you regarding the idiocy of a regressive tax structure whereby Mitt Romney’s rate is lower than a garbage man’s), but that doesn’t come anything like close to solving the problem: even if the IRS were to tax one hundred percent of the income of every earner over $66,000/year and one hundred percent of the income of every corporation in the country, it would raise less than $7 trillion–a full trillion dollars away from the amount of revenue needed just to stop entitlements from adding to the debt (which of course is only half the battle anyway, because eventually our past obligations need to be paid down).
[That last point comes from here: Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ]
So, President Obama has this unique chance to “right” the ship (pun very much intended)–because only someone like him could sell entitlement cuts to the Senate–and, if his first term and Second Inaugural are any indication, he is going to flash that charming smile and wave at the opportunity as it sails past him.
Edit: link seems to be broken, you can find it if you do a Google search though.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Beans and I don’t always agree, for God sake he’s from New England, but Beans has helped me understand concepts that I learned and had to learn to get an undergraduate degree in accounting. He is very knowledgeable from what I’ve read on this particular subject.
You had to ask for the definition of an unfunded liability and you are not impressed with his knowledge base, why would you even say that?
If I were you I would take a few entry level economics courses and if you can a tax course or two. The things you say don’t make any sense to anyone that has even a marginal background in these matters.
I don’t understand you. Why are you pointing out shortcomings in others when you yourself have glaring shortcomings? [/quote]
Beans has also helped me grasp certain aspects , I would say the most after I researched my capital gains tax. I misunderstood the term 50% rate , I just signed and wrote the check:) . I understand it is not his job to inform properly and This is a debate forum . I just expected a more full disclosure when he defines a term that is specific to his expertise
[/quote]
Shouldn’t the onus fall on you to inquire further if you don’t fully understand a concept or for you to do your own research?
I took 2 tax course that covered hundreds of code sections and I am constantly asking questions. My wife has a M.S. in taxation and she still has to ask questions. I’m sure Beans has to research emerging tax issues as well, which is why I’m quick to point out your short comings here.
I would certainly respect your opinion more if you took the time to ask more questions/understand a concept on your own rather than insult another poster. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
[/quote]
I did the research on the definition of unfunded liability and no where in it’s definition was pension mentioned sure if some one were negligent enough not to include a know liability in it’s budget then it would be unfunded . In my opinion unfunded should be unforeseen
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you read the definition, but pensions are some of the largest unfunded liabilities I’ve learned about. The problem arises when that unfunded liability remains unfunded and increases over time.
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Why are pensions unfunded They know they owe them they know how much they owe it is a foreseeable expense ?
[/quote]
This is a massive issue. There has to be a million articles written about it.
Many, many people feel the same way you do.
I imagine it comes down to funding a pension is very expensive and ties up a ton of cash better used for other things.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Beans and I don’t always agree, for God sake he’s from New England, but Beans has helped me understand concepts that I learned and had to learn to get an undergraduate degree in accounting. He is very knowledgeable from what I’ve read on this particular subject.
You had to ask for the definition of an unfunded liability and you are not impressed with his knowledge base, why would you even say that?
If I were you I would take a few entry level economics courses and if you can a tax course or two. The things you say don’t make any sense to anyone that has even a marginal background in these matters.
I don’t understand you. Why are you pointing out shortcomings in others when you yourself have glaring shortcomings? [/quote]
Beans has also helped me grasp certain aspects , I would say the most after I researched my capital gains tax. I misunderstood the term 50% rate , I just signed and wrote the check:) . I understand it is not his job to inform properly and This is a debate forum . I just expected a more full disclosure when he defines a term that is specific to his expertise
[/quote]
Shouldn’t the onus fall on you to inquire further if you don’t fully understand a concept or for you to do your own research?
I took 2 tax course that covered hundreds of code sections and I am constantly asking questions. My wife has a M.S. in taxation and she still has to ask questions. I’m sure Beans has to research emerging tax issues as well, which is why I’m quick to point out your short comings here.
I would certainly respect your opinion more if you took the time to ask more questions/understand a concept on your own rather than insult another poster. That’s my $0.02 anyway.
[/quote]
I did the research on the definition of unfunded liability and no where in it’s definition was pension mentioned sure if some one were negligent enough not to include a know liability in it’s budget then it would be unfunded . In my opinion unfunded should be unforeseen
[/quote]
I’m not sure where you read the definition, but pensions are some of the largest unfunded liabilities I’ve learned about. The problem arises when that unfunded liability remains unfunded and increases over time.
[/quote]
[/quote]
“Unfunded
Describing any liability or other expense that does not have savings or investments set aside to pay it. That is, the party responsible for paying an unfunded liability pays for it out of current income or by borrowing. The risk of an unfunded liability is that a payee may not receive that which he/she is entitled to if the payer goes through a difficult financial period. It also increases the payer’s current liabilities.”
Looking at the definition you provided, what is your problem then with Pensions? It fits the definition.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
what is that over the next 100 years ?
[/quote]
LOL! It wouldn’t even pay for the next 10 years.
Egon von Greyerz, founder of Matterhorn Asset Management in Switzerland:
“U.S. debt is increasing by approximately $1.5 trillion per year. If you add to that the increase in unfunded liabilities, you get an increase, only in 2012, of $7 trillion.”
The $70 trillion represents the current entitlement debt and unfunded liabilities when calculated according to 'Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Some have calculated it much higher at $130 trillion.[/quote]
[/quote]
can you post a link , I am not quite sure by what you mean by unfunded liabilities ?
[/quote]
unfunded liabilities = debt you cannot cover given your current financial situation.
Like most government pension plans, and private pension plans as well. [/quote]
Thanks so unfunded Liabilities could be covering any one that suffered the effects of Agent Orange or the cops DEA breaking down the wrong Door ? feel free to list some examples
[/quote]
What are you talking about? DEA?
Jesus:
An Unfunded Liability:
a) Person a retired, and is due 1,100,000 in payments over the rest of their life based on actuarial tables and PV etc etc etc…
b) Company sets up a fund to pull from in order to make those payments. Based on FV calc’s the company, in year one puts 200k in the fund expecting it to grow over the life of the pension
The liability is short term funded, because they have 200k to cover one years payments, but long term is unfunded because they don’t have enough to cover the 1.1mil they owe the person based on the calcs. [/quote]
I am curious how broad a term unfunded liability is. It sounds as broad as they come
[/quote]
Unfunded liabilities are easiest to understand if juxtaposed with debt:
Debt is a function of past promises–promises (to make payments) that have already been made and that we are contractually obligated to make good on.
Unfunded liabilities are a function of future promises–the government’s obligation to pay health care and retirement benefits into the future. If you add up all of those obligations for the next 75 years and subtract from that the projected amount of tax revenue that will be collected by the IRS over that same span, there is a gap of about $87 trillion (the bad kind of gap, not the kind that means surplus).
Not good. However, the good thing about a 75-year projection is that small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by. Now we just need a President who’s willing to make those changes on a grand enough scale. Obama’s “everybody needs to pay their fair share” line sounds fine and all (and I am with you regarding the idiocy of a regressive tax structure whereby Mitt Romney’s rate is lower than a garbage man’s), but that doesn’t come anything like close to solving the problem: even if the IRS were to tax one hundred percent of the income of every earner over $66,000/year and one hundred percent of the income of every corporation in the country, it would raise less than $7 trillion–a full trillion dollars away from the amount of revenue needed just to stop entitlements from adding to the debt (which of course is only half the battle anyway, because eventually our past obligations need to be paid down).
[That last point comes from here: Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ]
So, President Obama has this unique chance to “right” the ship (pun very much intended)–because only someone like him could sell entitlement cuts to the Senate–and, if his first term and Second Inaugural are any indication, he is going to flash that charming smile and wave at the opportunity as it sails past him.
Edit: link seems to be broken, you can find it if you do a Google search though.[/quote]
A couple of things:
1.) It’s easy to say, “small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by,” however, it’s not exactly simple. The time value of money isn’t a hard science.
2.) I’m sure this has been hammered (probably by ZEB or Beans), but Romney’s tax liability being lower than a garbage man is a function of capital. The risk would out weigh the reward if the capital gains rate was on par with earned income rates. Capital would dry up and the economy would be in even worse shape than it is. Business’ would literally close without money coming in via stock exchanges, which would reduce employment (read tax revenue on income).
Romney paying less actually helps increase the number of people paying taxes thus increasing tax revenue.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
My friends in Australia fly here for specialist treatment…because they would have to wait MONTHS there to see a doctor.
Same with Canada and England.
It sounds good in theory, but the practical application of socialized medicine is just not possible.[/quote]
My bullshit detectors are going off.
Wait times in the Australian private medical sector are close to zero even for elective surgery. [/quote]
Was speaking of the state heath care system.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
TV, computers and cell phones are not luxuries? You classify those items as necessities?
How much should Wal-Mart pay its employees? Whenever I go into Wal-Mart it seems to have plenty of workers.
Economics.[/quote]
I would classify computers and cell phones as necessities. Computers are a huge help when searching for work, when preparing for interviews and job applications, and in improving marketable skills.
Likewise having a mobile phone makes it much easier to apply for and organise to get a job and if you go with a cheap plan it does not cost much more than a home phone line.
When you are out of work you have an obligation to do your best to find work rather than live off the state. So investing small amounts of money in areas that will drastically improve your chances of landing a job is a necessity.[/quote]
I meant to comment on this one earlier. Just because something is helpful or useful doesn’t make it a necessity. Water is a necessity, you’d die without it. A computer, I think you’ll survive.
Not picking on you, but I think this type of mentality is part of the reason we as a nation have so many problems. What’s next, Facebook will be a necessity because how else can you network, right?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Somebody had to.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Somebody had to.[/quote]
Lamb Chop what did I do you have been like an angry little girl
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to tell you Beans when I first met you I was as impressed as any one on this board , I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Somebody had to.[/quote]
Lamb Chop what did I do you have been like an angry little girl
[/quote]
No, I don’t mind people disagreeing with me or what I beleive in…but I am here to learn and your incessant babbling and arguing with people who not only know more than you, but are cleary correct…is perhps the most annoying thing on this site.
Take the time to type your posts correctly and if you feel the need to denigrate somebody, at least do it in the pot thread…which is the only place you have any kind of authority.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
what is that over the next 100 years ?
[/quote]
LOL! It wouldn’t even pay for the next 10 years.
Egon von Greyerz, founder of Matterhorn Asset Management in Switzerland:
“U.S. debt is increasing by approximately $1.5 trillion per year. If you add to that the increase in unfunded liabilities, you get an increase, only in 2012, of $7 trillion.”
The $70 trillion represents the current entitlement debt and unfunded liabilities when calculated according to 'Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Some have calculated it much higher at $130 trillion.[/quote]
[/quote]
can you post a link , I am not quite sure by what you mean by unfunded liabilities ?
[/quote]
unfunded liabilities = debt you cannot cover given your current financial situation.
Like most government pension plans, and private pension plans as well. [/quote]
Thanks so unfunded Liabilities could be covering any one that suffered the effects of Agent Orange or the cops DEA breaking down the wrong Door ? feel free to list some examples
[/quote]
What are you talking about? DEA?
Jesus:
An Unfunded Liability:
a) Person a retired, and is due 1,100,000 in payments over the rest of their life based on actuarial tables and PV etc etc etc…
b) Company sets up a fund to pull from in order to make those payments. Based on FV calc’s the company, in year one puts 200k in the fund expecting it to grow over the life of the pension
The liability is short term funded, because they have 200k to cover one years payments, but long term is unfunded because they don’t have enough to cover the 1.1mil they owe the person based on the calcs. [/quote]
I am curious how broad a term unfunded liability is. It sounds as broad as they come
[/quote]
Unfunded liabilities are easiest to understand if juxtaposed with debt:
Debt is a function of past promises–promises (to make payments) that have already been made and that we are contractually obligated to make good on.
Unfunded liabilities are a function of future promises–the government’s obligation to pay health care and retirement benefits into the future. If you add up all of those obligations for the next 75 years and subtract from that the projected amount of tax revenue that will be collected by the IRS over that same span, there is a gap of about $87 trillion (the bad kind of gap, not the kind that means surplus).
Not good. However, the good thing about a 75-year projection is that small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by. Now we just need a President who’s willing to make those changes on a grand enough scale. Obama’s “everybody needs to pay their fair share” line sounds fine and all (and I am with you regarding the idiocy of a regressive tax structure whereby Mitt Romney’s rate is lower than a garbage man’s), but that doesn’t come anything like close to solving the problem: even if the IRS were to tax one hundred percent of the income of every earner over $66,000/year and one hundred percent of the income of every corporation in the country, it would raise less than $7 trillion–a full trillion dollars away from the amount of revenue needed just to stop entitlements from adding to the debt (which of course is only half the battle anyway, because eventually our past obligations need to be paid down).
[That last point comes from here: Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ]
So, President Obama has this unique chance to “right” the ship (pun very much intended)–because only someone like him could sell entitlement cuts to the Senate–and, if his first term and Second Inaugural are any indication, he is going to flash that charming smile and wave at the opportunity as it sails past him.
Edit: link seems to be broken, you can find it if you do a Google search though.[/quote]
A couple of things:
1.) It’s easy to say, “small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by,” however, it’s not exactly simple. The time value of money isn’t a hard science.
2.) I’m sure this has been hammered (probably by ZEB or Beans), but Romney’s tax liability being lower than a garbage man is a function of capital. The risk would out weigh the reward if the capital gains rate was on par with earned income rates. Capital would dry up and the economy would be in even worse shape than it is. Business’ would literally close without money coming in via stock exchanges, which would reduce employment (read tax revenue on income).
Romney paying less actually helps increase the number of people paying taxes thus increasing tax revenue.
[/quote]
Re: point one, it may not be simple, but it sure as hell is necessary.
Though the Romney point was a sort of a minor aside, I’ll address it: first of all, a very substantial portion of Mitt Romney’s income over the years has been carried interest, which is taxed at the capital gains rate but is really more like a management fee levied by private equity firms and paid by their “clients.” So that in and of itself lends strength to the argument that Romney and people like him are paying a bit less than they should.
Even ignoring that point: the capital gains rate is low for good reason. Anything that encourages investment is desirable. However, in the end income is income. That a large chunk of Mitt Romney’s income is a function of his money making more money for him is hardly a serious justification for him to pay the same tax rate as a cleaning lady.
The question becomes: would it discourage investment if something like a functioning, actually-helpful AMT were to adjust somebody like Mitt Romney up to 20 percent or whatever, regardless of the source of the income itself?
I believe that the answer is absolutely not (Warren Buffet made an excellent case for this in a NYT op-ed, if you’re interested). If I could make $20 million by investing with the caveat that, over a certain threshold of total income, I’d be taxed at the same rate as a mid-level corporate nobody rather than at that of his secretary, I’d do it. And so would every other rational player in the game. In other words, financial investment would not in any way cease being a sound-as-a-motherfucker way of earning money.
This point is aided by the fact that nobody can find the “growth spurt” in investment in the wake of Bush’s cut to the capital gains tax.
Anyway, if we’re going to argue this back and forth, we should probably start a new thread.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
what is that over the next 100 years ?
[/quote]
LOL! It wouldn’t even pay for the next 10 years.
Egon von Greyerz, founder of Matterhorn Asset Management in Switzerland:
“U.S. debt is increasing by approximately $1.5 trillion per year. If you add to that the increase in unfunded liabilities, you get an increase, only in 2012, of $7 trillion.”
The $70 trillion represents the current entitlement debt and unfunded liabilities when calculated according to 'Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) Some have calculated it much higher at $130 trillion.[/quote]
[/quote]
can you post a link , I am not quite sure by what you mean by unfunded liabilities ?
[/quote]
unfunded liabilities = debt you cannot cover given your current financial situation.
Like most government pension plans, and private pension plans as well. [/quote]
Thanks so unfunded Liabilities could be covering any one that suffered the effects of Agent Orange or the cops DEA breaking down the wrong Door ? feel free to list some examples
[/quote]
What are you talking about? DEA?
Jesus:
An Unfunded Liability:
a) Person a retired, and is due 1,100,000 in payments over the rest of their life based on actuarial tables and PV etc etc etc…
b) Company sets up a fund to pull from in order to make those payments. Based on FV calc’s the company, in year one puts 200k in the fund expecting it to grow over the life of the pension
The liability is short term funded, because they have 200k to cover one years payments, but long term is unfunded because they don’t have enough to cover the 1.1mil they owe the person based on the calcs. [/quote]
I am curious how broad a term unfunded liability is. It sounds as broad as they come
[/quote]
Unfunded liabilities are easiest to understand if juxtaposed with debt:
Debt is a function of past promises–promises (to make payments) that have already been made and that we are contractually obligated to make good on.
Unfunded liabilities are a function of future promises–the government’s obligation to pay health care and retirement benefits into the future. If you add up all of those obligations for the next 75 years and subtract from that the projected amount of tax revenue that will be collected by the IRS over that same span, there is a gap of about $87 trillion (the bad kind of gap, not the kind that means surplus).
Not good. However, the good thing about a 75-year projection is that small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by. Now we just need a President who’s willing to make those changes on a grand enough scale. Obama’s “everybody needs to pay their fair share” line sounds fine and all (and I am with you regarding the idiocy of a regressive tax structure whereby Mitt Romney’s rate is lower than a garbage man’s), but that doesn’t come anything like close to solving the problem: even if the IRS were to tax one hundred percent of the income of every earner over $66,000/year and one hundred percent of the income of every corporation in the country, it would raise less than $7 trillion–a full trillion dollars away from the amount of revenue needed just to stop entitlements from adding to the debt (which of course is only half the battle anyway, because eventually our past obligations need to be paid down).
[That last point comes from here: Cox and Archer: Why $16 Trillion Only Hints at the True U.S. Debt - WSJ]
So, President Obama has this unique chance to “right” the ship (pun very much intended)–because only someone like him could sell entitlement cuts to the Senate–and, if his first term and Second Inaugural are any indication, he is going to flash that charming smile and wave at the opportunity as it sails past him.
Edit: link seems to be broken, you can find it if you do a Google search though.[/quote]
A couple of things:
1.) It’s easy to say, “small changes made today become fairly large changes as the years go by,” however, it’s not exactly simple. The time value of money isn’t a hard science.
2.) I’m sure this has been hammered (probably by ZEB or Beans), but Romney’s tax liability being lower than a garbage man is a function of capital. The risk would out weigh the reward if the capital gains rate was on par with earned income rates. Capital would dry up and the economy would be in even worse shape than it is. Business’ would literally close without money coming in via stock exchanges, which would reduce employment (read tax revenue on income).
Romney paying less actually helps increase the number of people paying taxes thus increasing tax revenue.
[/quote]
Re: point one, it may not be simple, but it sure as hell is necessary.
Though the Romney point was a sort of a minor aside, I’ll address it: first of all, a very substantial portion of Mitt Romney’s income over the years has been carried interest, which is taxed at the capital gains rate but is really more like a management fee levied by private equity firms and paid by their “clients.” So that in and of itself lends strength to the argument that Romney and people like him are paying a bit less than they should.
Even ignoring that point: the capital gains rate is low for good reason. Anything that encourages investment is desirable. However, in the end income is income. That a large chunk of Mitt Romney’s income is a function of his money making more money for him is hardly a serious justification for him to pay the same tax rate as a cleaning lady.
The question becomes: would it discourage investment if something like a functioning, actually-helpful AMT were to adjust somebody like Mitt Romney up to 20 percent or whatever, regardless of the source of the income itself?
I believe that the answer is absolutely not (Warren Buffet made an excellent case for this in a NYT op-ed, if you’re interested). If I could make $20 million by investing with the caveat that, over a certain threshold of total income, I’d be taxed at the same rate as a mid-level corporate nobody rather than at that of his secretary, I’d do it. And so would every other rational player in the game. In other words, financial investment would not in any way cease being a sound-as-a-motherfucker way of earning money.
This point is aided by the fact that nobody can find the “growth spurt” in investment in the wake of Bush’s cut to the capital gains tax.
Anyway, if we’re going to argue this back and forth, we should probably start a new thread.[/quote]
No, I’m not really interested in arguing back and forth about this to be honest. There are multiple lines of thinking and we disagree. Not a big deal.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…and blowjobs will be given out at random.
[/quote]
Where does the line start?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No, I’m not really interested in arguing back and forth about this to be honest. There are multiple lines of thinking and we disagree. Not a big deal.[/quote]
I was hoping you would say that, haha. I don’t particularly enjoy arguing tax code myself.
High five.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…and blowjobs will be given out at random.
[/quote]
Where does the line start? [/quote]
Tom Brady’s house?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I see you now in a diminished capacity [/quote]
Okay?
Couldn’t have anything to do with the 6,000 bong rips you’ve taken in that time I’m sure…[/quote]
No excuse!
