What would you do if 95% of your income were taxed?

LOL, how about getting a degree in economics, or at least read a book. Or better yet, write Kotlikoff a letter and point out his error. Let me know how it goes.

 

As is typical, you cannot even address my assertions and arguments, much less rebut them, so you resort to ad homs. How unusual for you. SSDD.

 

I would move out of said country.

 

Isn't this what they are already doing by continuing to degrade the purchasing power of the dollar to keep from ever really having to pay off the national debt?

 

Cool! Then stop saying "It can't be done!"

Well, it depends on how much of our debt we manage to convert to the current low yields, and how long those terms are. I personally think the Fed should bring back 30-year bonds and try to lock in lower rates for as long as possible, but that seems unlikely. Still, most of our debt for the next 10 years or so will be of the low-yield variety.

By the way, I find your use of the term "artificially low" kind of funny. The Fed is keeping interest rates near zero because that's the natural (i.e., non-artificial) place for it right now. Basic Fed policy is to keep interest rates as low as possible (to spur investment and employment) without allowing inflation to get to high (which strangles the economy). Inflation is very low and shows no signs of exploding, so we're able to keep interest rates low. That will likely be temporary, but it isn't "artificial".

#1, you don't design your economy around people on fixed incomes.

#2, those people are benefited on the other side by low inflation. And for just a little more risk than T-bills, retirees can invest in corporate bonds, which yield comfortably more than inflation.

(BTW, I was wrong about T-bills. A couple of years ago they yielded less than inflation, but inflation was so low in 2014 that they didn't do it last year. So switch my phrasing "borrowing money basically for free" to "almost for free".)

For instance, Bloomberg's Corporate Bond Index currently has a yield of 3.08%. That's ahead of the inflation rate, which was just 0.8% last year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/corporate-bonds/
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

Only if they were stupid and put all their money in T-bills. And even then, they'll still have pensions and SS.

People on fixed incomes sometimes have it harder than the rest of us (when bond yields are low relative to inflation), but other times have it way better (times of high unemployment, or when bond yields are high relative to inflation). Citing their difficulties isn't an argument for or against a given economic situation.

While stock valuations are at a 10-year high, stocks aren't hugely overvalue by most measures, in part because bond yields are so low -- when bond yields are low, stock prices are high, and vice versa. It's not a bubble; it's basic economics. It won't "collapse"; if bond yields start to rise, people will start shifting money back into bonds. There might be a period of stagnation or slow decline, but it won't be a bubble bursting.

Um... okay. An op-ed by a Bitcoin advocate and Russia Today columnist who wants to "audit the Fed." Definitely persuasive. :eyeroll:

Measuring inflation is a big job, just like measuring unemployment. It's impossible to get a "real" number because that would require interviewing everyone in the country. Instead we do surveys, so everything is a bit of an approximation. Knowing that, I'll go with the survey that covers 80,000 products on a regular basis. Nobody else even comes close.

I've given you post after post showing just such a plan. Will things like SS need to be restructured? Maybe. But that doesn't mean our overall financial situation is unsolvable.

I didn't say Republicans were devils and Democrats are saints. Democrats are as capable of spending irresponsibly as anyone.

But when it comes to deficit reduction, it's the Republicans who have been deeply unserious. Democrats supported PAYGO; Democrats offered Republicans a 2.5-to-1 cuts-to-hikes ratio as part of a deal to close the deficit. Republicans have rejected both. Those are just facts.

Instead Republicans float fantasies like Paul Ryan's budget, which balances the budget by basically gutting the social safety net. That's a stunt, not a serious plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...get-to-slash-51-trillion-in-federal-spending/


Ryan's budget brings back a now-familiar list of spending cuts to promise balance, including $2.1 trillion over 10 years in health care subsidies and coverage under the Affordable Care Act, $732 billion in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, and almost $1 trillion in cuts to other benefit programs like food stamps, Pell Grants, and farm subsidies. While repealing the benefits of "Obamacare," Ryan would preserve its tax increases and cuts to providers, including cuts to private insurers under the Medicare Advantage program.


When it comes to trying to eliminate the deficit, Democrats are trying in a realistic way; Republicans aren't.

 

If progressives want to give more money to their beloved government what's stopping them? Do it. Prove that you truly believe in your cradle to grave government knows better idea. Give more of your own money. There is nothing stopping you.

 

Um, basic math?

One person could bankrupt themselves and make no appreciable difference. Government is ALL of us doing something. We each contribute a little bit, allowing us to achieve big things at a relatively small per-capita cost.

I support a strong social safety net. However, I can neither afford to fully fund it myself, nor am I enough of a chump to do so. If we're all pitching in, on the other hand, I'm happy to do my part.

IOW, I'm willing to accept -- and even propose -- higher taxes on myself as part of a group effort to achieve a common goal. I am not, however, willing to bankrupt myself trying to achieve that goal on my own, while the rest of you free-ride on my efforts.

Which is not rocket science, and which explains why your post represents one of the dumber conservative bumper stickers floating around out there.

 

The Republicans have finally found a tax increase many of them can get behind. Unfortunately it’s the first middle class tax increase in decades. Make no mistake, failure to renew the payroll tax cut would mean a significant tax increase.


http://www.frumforum.com/the-gop-payroll-tax-cut-blunder/

 

I just don't take you seriously, that's all. I mean you still think there was a surplus.

 

As is typical, you cannot even address my assertions and arguments, much less rebut them, so you resort to ad homs. How unusual for you. SSDD.

 

I would make sure I had no income of which the government was aware.

 

That's not a easy as it sounds. For an amendment to be made, two-thirds of the members of each house of Congress must approve it, and three-fourths of the states must ratify it. Congress decides whether the ratification will be by state legislatures or by popularly elected conventions in the several states (though in only one instance, that of the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed prohibition, was the convention system used).

 

That's because they could write off an unlimited amount of mortgage interest and credit card interest, among other things, as they had. Which was basically a government subsidy to finance borrowing for the wealthy. Much easier to invest on margin when the government pays for the charges.

 

Not as easy as you think. The US is the exception as far as letting their citizens become tax refugees. In many other countries it is not that easy to just leave with all your money and/or escape taxes just by leaving.

 

Been done. At 94% in the 50's for the highest brackets. Don't all conservatives regard that time as "the good old days"?

 

Nope never happened. I am not a Con.

 

Best option is tax avoidance, I would hire the best tax expert to tell me what to do...

 

It may depend on how much I made in the first place under our form of capitalism. For example, the wealthiest can handle wartime tax rates of ninety-five percent even if only to ensure we win any conflict even if only through attrition. Losing any conflict may be very bad for capital business. Most of the wealthiest should understand that very well.

However, if you are referring to a command economy transitioning to a market economy, under the lefts epiphany that we should merely Use capitalism for all of its worth; then a progressive raising of wages as the economy becomes more market oriented may be expected.

 

Valid, but this was really besides the point I was trying to make. If you were just an average middle class person, who earned enough money to provide a good life for yourself and your family.

The point was that the government has the power to exercise a considerable level of control by taxing your income and then telling you what you have to do if you want your money they took back. It's not just a small amount of money.

 

Yes, I agree that playing shell-games with Statism seems to be a form of job security for our politicos. It is one reason why I believe the least wealthy should merely "free-ride" on the "coattails" of wealthier Persons who can actually afford coattails when discussing private interests with public officials--that may result in an "upgrade" to our privileges and immunities.

In my opinion and in modern times, it is what nice Socialism can always be good for.

 

I would do nothing if not under the table or by barter and I would watch from my porch gleefully as the government burned.

 

it would never happen as people would revolt, but I have no issues paying a fair tax, what I do have issue with is the rich paying less tax per dollar then the working class does