Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

>"Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job. I'd never move to a leftist state by choice. "

If that's the case I apologize.

Another thing I have been hearing is that California has many strongly conservative or republican areas, but places like LA outvote them and with winner takes all the dissenting votes are wasted. They claimed, I think, that if you would remove a few coastal cities it would be a red state.

I am hearing similar shit about Canada. Liberals are the most vocal and want to share the country - with immigrants. Look at the most prolific online and if you want borders on your country you are a racist and twelve other things. But the ones who don't speak up much, more than they think I think, do not want to "share" their country. Why the fuck should they ? They are doing fine, not made of money but not riding on as house of cards like the US and some of the UK. Why fuck that all up ?

The liberals tell them they will have a bigger labor pool and can expand their business and trade and it will help the economy. BULLSHIT. And many of them know it. Even in Britain, why did Brexit pass ? And I don't need any Slowman bullshit on this, what did the People see that impelled them to even put it on the ballot let alone pass it ? I think they saw what happened to their neighborhoods, crime rate and welfare rolls. I think they saw that those motherfuckers got benefits form their tax money that they themselves couldn't get. They may have also seen too many luxury cars in the parking lot at the welfare office.

What reason do YOU think they had for passing that ? They were not misled. I would have executed everyone in the government who signed up for that, promoted it, lied about it. Iceland knows how to take care of people like that. They are traitors, cede power that was vested in them by the voters ? What the fuck else would you call it ?

Think of Trump going on TV and saying "Since China is doing so well I am going to let Xi run the US, OK ?". Then he would get people who want to assassinate him who really WILL do it. Got us out of most of the crippling trade agreements that were entered into by traitors. So the world bitches about it, know why ? The milk stopped. "Oh this is gong to wreck the world economy" and then in the next breath "We don't need the US anyway, just go away, we can handle Russia". Yeah, can you handle freezing to death next winter ? Russia would own you pipsqueaks if not for two things, number one the UK up around there is an excellent customer and soon the rates will go down as soon as they build a new pipeline going around Ukraine so they can't steal any more. Another thing that keeps Russia from taking Britain, aside from the fact that they probably don't even want it, is because there is still a treaty with the US, the big bad boy on the block. The HNIC you see. Not that they're afraid, but they know it would cost too much.
 
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:23:20 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2019-04-17 10:40, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost
wanton spending (California)."

Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean
little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.

And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which
is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective
inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)


Yo, wait a minute. I did _not_ move here by choice but because of a job.
I'd never move to a leftist state by choice.


And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way
from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.


Only the ones of a certain political affiliation.


You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would
bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on
that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else
they can get.

The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing
them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.


I have never voted for any profligate spender and never will.

--

I assume then that you didn't vote for and don't support Trump?
Trump has significantly increased spending and cut taxes. The deficit
had been declining and was down to $580 bil in 2016. This year it's $1 tril.
The first $1 tril deficit since the horrific recession. We had a good
reason for $1 tril deficits for a few years back then. Trump has no such
excuse now.
 
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.

Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.
 
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 3:40:18 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"I am saying this as a taxpayer living in a state with almost wanton spending (California). "

Almost ? They got more debt than most countries and I don't mean little ones the size of a state, I mean like Russia.

And then you claim yo give back more to the feds that you take which is a totally manipulated statistic achieved only by selective inclusion of variables. (and you fucking know it)

And worse, your congress critters want to spend MY money all the way from Ohio and take MY guns n shit.

You are too good to live there, you got skills. Believe me I would bet right now that I could get 100,000 people to come and work on that San Andreas fault with dynamite, jack hammers and whatever else they can get.

The fact that the effort would be entirely futile wouldn't discourage any of them. Geological forces are large, and your 100,000 work force would be a pin-prick in comparison.

> The government there is the real problem but you can't deny electing them unless you claim the illegal immigrants did it.

As Trump has. The state government in California isn't actually any kind of problem. The people who see it as a problem want to restore the US to the state it was in in 1788 - when agriculture was so primitive and un-productive that you couldn't put every kid through school because most of them had to work full-time on the farms to help keep the rest of the population fed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 7:39:53 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

Sorry to say but why should taxpayers in well-run states subsidize other
states that practice profligate spending? I never understood that sort
of "logic" in pre-2017 tax laws.

Well, one reason is that an interstate highway ought not
to dead-end at a state border. I've seen that... it wasn't a welcome
sight.

Another is the minor matter of definitions.

'Profligate spending' means 'spending'.
'Subsidize' means ' contribute to' or 'invest in' a common project.

Similarly,
'Cutthroat competition' means 'competition'.
 
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.


Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.

Well, something will happen. We can't continue to pile on $1 tril deficits
in years with a good economy. Another $2 tril has been added under Trump.
The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to
make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be.
Funny thing, all the alleged conservatives said deficits were a huge
problem under Obama, but they are completely silent now.
 
"We can't continue to pile on $1 tril deficits
in years with a good economy."

Well Obama scored $1.25 tril a year. What do you say about that ? Was that sustainable and this is not ? How ?
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:12:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.


Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.

The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to
make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be.

There is no actual trust fund.

That's sadly another internet lie. There is a trust fund, as created
in the 30s. It's invested in US treasuries. And we know there is a
trust fund, because it's being used right now to pay benefits. At the
current rate, it will be exhausted in 15 years.




The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.
This odd way of doing things (SS issued intragovernmental debt/securities) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be within the taxing power of Congress.

If the trust fund is non-existent or worthless, then so is every other
treasury security. You know, those securities that are held by investors,
pension funds, govts, individuals the world over and that trade in the
market every day. The fact that they are trading at interest rates of 3%,
not only says that they are not worthless, but that they are considered
among the safest investments in the world.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 11:07:49 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"We can't continue to pile on $1 tril deficits
in years with a good economy."

Well Obama scored $1.25 tril a year. What do you say about that ? Was that sustainable and this is not ? How ?

Obama and the Congress had a very good reason for running $1 tril+ deficits
for a few years, because of the economic calamity that the nation faced,
that happened before Obama took office. The deficit was down to $580 bil
in 2016, before Trump took over. Trump took over with a growing, normal
economy, not an economy spiraling downhill. If you look at the charts
of GFP, jobs, unemployment, there was
a straight line improvement starting in 2009. There is no comparison.
I'd say that running $580 bil a year deficit in 2016 was bad, but Trump
doubling that is 2X worse. And why aren't the trumpets saying that?
When is the last time you heard Trump mention the national debt or the
deficit?
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:12:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.


Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.

The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to
make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be.

There is no actual trust fund. The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.

This odd way of doing things (SS issued intragovernmental debt/securities) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be within the taxing power of Congress.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 9:20:20 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:12:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.


Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.

The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to
make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be.

There is no actual trust fund.

That's sadly another internet lie. There is a trust fund, as created
in the 30s. It's invested in US treasuries. And we know there is a
trust fund, because it's being used right now to pay benefits. At the
current rate, it will be exhausted in 15 years.

As a legalism, you're correct, the "trust fund" exists. This is a point Captain Obvious also makes, so thanks for that. Everyone knows there is a paper (bookkeeping) exercise labeled "trust fund." As something that is critically analyzed outside legal positivism (analyzing what the doublespeak means in practice), there is no trust fund in any meaningful way.

There is no "trust fund" unless the government writing an IOU to itself is considered a trust fund. Such a notion is logically nonsense, and never practiced in the private world, but that sort of doublespeak is par for the course. The government's selection of words does not impart a duty upon you to not look at it critically and understand it for what it is in reality.

They call it "insurance" too, but it certainly isn't insurance if the word is viewed with a critical eye for meaning.

The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.

This odd way of doing things (SS issued intragovernmental debt/securities) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be within the taxing power of Congress.

If the trust fund is non-existent or worthless, then so is every other
treasury security.

This is utter nonsense. I specifically referred to intragovernmental debt. It is not so easy to "default" on other securities. In fact, there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on these other securities.

It is just like I said: the distinction is that they take the money out of your left pocket rather than your right. It goes in a different box on your W-2.

Congress could write away the "trust fund" with the stroke of a pen, and raise other taxes to pay SS benefits to net the same. That's how meaningful the distinction is. This is, in fact, what could happen by default once the "trust fund" (lol) runs out. That is, it could happen if the politicians decide they want to fulfill promised payments *and* they decide to do it in a way other than "SS taxes." After all, it is nothing more than a redistribution program. Do you really care which pocket they tax you out of? You're paying regardless.

You know, those securities that are held by investors,
pension funds, govts, individuals the world over and that trade in the
market every day. The fact that they are trading at interest rates of 3%,
not only says that they are not worthless, but that they are considered
among the safest investments in the world.

Straw man---I said nothing of the kind.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 1:47:31 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 9:20:20 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:04:32 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:12:21 AM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 8:12:27 AM UTC-7, amdx wrote:

The question is how do we reduce it. Cut spending or raise taxes.
I'm all for cutting spending but it never seems to get done...

... SS needs fixing and better now than later, but, congress.


Every area of federal spending needs a haircut. It won't happen. Public choice theory explains why. I believe it would help the matter if the 17th amendment was repealed, but that's about as likely to happen as elected politicians reducing spending.

The SS trust fund runs out in another 15 years, the longer we wait to
make changes to solve that, the bigger the changes will have to be.

There is no actual trust fund.

That's sadly another internet lie. There is a trust fund, as created
in the 30s. It's invested in US treasuries. And we know there is a
trust fund, because it's being used right now to pay benefits. At the
current rate, it will be exhausted in 15 years.

As a legalism, you're correct, the "trust fund" exists. This is a point Captain Obvious also makes, so thanks for that. Everyone knows there is a paper (bookkeeping) exercise labeled "trust fund." As something that is critically analyzed outside legal positivism (analyzing what the doublespeak means in practice), there is no trust fund in any meaningful way.

Of course there is, it's in US treasuries that are traded every day
and at 3% interest rates, showing investors have confidence in them.
Many private pension funds are also invested in US treasuries. Are
they a fraud, non-existent too?



There is no "trust fund" unless the government writing an IOU to itself is considered a trust fund. Such a notion is logically nonsense, and never practiced in the private world, but that sort of doublespeak is par for the course. The government's selection of words does not impart a duty upon you to not look at it critically and understand it for what it is in reality.

I understand it for what it is. So do the markets the world over and their
judgment obviously does not equate with yours. They actually own the
securities, in other words, investors the world over put their money where
their mouths are every day.




They call it "insurance" too, but it certainly isn't insurance if the word is viewed with a critical eye for meaning.

It certainly is insurance. If you're working, become disabled, it pays
benefits.




The bookkeeping amounts to the difference between taxing the money in your right-hand pocket from that of your left. Taxes, regardless of pocket taken out of, will have to go up, or spending down, or both.

This odd way of doing things (SS issued intragovernmental debt/securities) is a residue of the fact that SS is unconstitutional in the first place, and to get around that, it was (quite disingenuously) claimed to be within the taxing power of Congress.


If the trust fund is non-existent or worthless, then so is every other
treasury security.

This is utter nonsense. I specifically referred to intragovernmental debt.. It is not so easy to "default" on other securities. In fact, there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on these other securities.

Now, you're full of nonsense. If the US defaulted on the securities in
the SS trust fund, it would be viewed by investors pretty much as it would a
default on any other treasury securities. Are you going to tell us that
an entity can default on some of it's securities, without the holders of
the rest of the essentially identical securities not realizing what;s
happening, that the debtor is broke?




It is just like I said: the distinction is that they take the money out of your left pocket rather than your right. It goes in a different box on your W-2.

Which has nothing to do with the trust fund. Sure, most of SS is being paid
from payroll taxes, but that is irrelevant.



Congress could write away the "trust fund" with the stroke of a pen,

Pure and utter nonsense for so many reasons that it's beyond stupid.



> and raise other taxes to pay SS benefits to net the same.

Even 15 years from now, when the SS trust fund runs out, if nothing
is done between then and now, the current payroll taxes would be
sufficient to pay 80% of benefits. Further, for your horror of horrors
to happen, the US would have to default on it's debt in the next 15 years.
Each year we get closer to 2034, that trust fund that you claim doesn't
exist, is being drawn down to pay SS benefits. By 2034 it will be gone.
I hope you'll be happy then.

This is just right wing, kook website stuff, the same BS that's been
spewed since the 30s.
 
>"Obama and ..."

Not from what I saw. Maybe what I saw was wrong. Point me to the right information.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

.... would be viewed by investors ....

You are an idiot.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:16:43 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

.... would be viewed by investors ....


You are an idiot.

The argument lost on the merits, the expected name calling begins.
You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust
fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade
in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher,
at a 3% interest rate. Long before actual default, securities would
be trading like junk bonds. The investors who actually buy US securities
say you're just full of BS. And further, with each passing year, your
"issue" becomes smaller and will be gone in 15 years, when the trust fund
is gone, unless changes are made.

Nuff said.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:05:00 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:16:43 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

.... would be viewed by investors ....


You are an idiot.

The argument lost on the merits, the expected name calling begins.

Only an idiot would call them "identical securities" and make these repeated incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by investors." Only an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was outed at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually buy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the difference between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open market..

You are an idiot.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 5:34:12 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:05:00 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:16:43 PM UTC-4, Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 12:17:12 PM UTC-7, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

.... would be viewed by investors ....


You are an idiot.

The argument lost on the merits, the expected name calling begins.

Only an idiot would call them "identical securities" and make these repeated incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by investors." Only an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was outed at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually buy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the difference between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open market.

You are an idiot.

The argument having been further lost, the name calling intensifies.
The securities held in the trust are in fact, virtually identical to
the US securities held the world over. Both are backed by the full
faith and credit of the US govt. Your argument is like saying
that Ford can default on one series of bonds because it can't
pay those and it will not have a
direct effect on the rest of Ford's bonds. Did you go to the Trump
school of economics? A default on the treasury securities in the SS
trust would be seen by investors the world over as a default and all
US debt instruments would respond, with catastrophic results. Plus,
it would be no more tenable for the US govt to default on the SS
trust bonds than it would be to default on the bonds held by any
other institution, individuals,etc. And again, what's the problem?
The trust just started being drawn down,
will be gone in 15 years. You expect the US govt to default in the
next 15 years? The debt markets obviously disagree and unlike you,
they actually own US debt securities.
 
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 1:07:49 AM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"We can't continue to pile on $1 tril deficits
in years with a good economy."

Well Obama scored $1.25 tril a year. What do you say about that ? Was that sustainable and this is not ? How ?

As we seem to keep telling you, that was Keynesian deficit-funded stimulus spending designed to rescue us from the worst effects of the GST.

Once the economy was out of recession, it wasn't needed and became a driver of inflation.

Trump doesn't seem to have read that particular bit of economic theory. John Larkin and James Arthur do seem to have read it, but don't believe in it - which makes them as ill-informed as Trump.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in
news:37a8a668-638d-41b9-82d7-521d346aee7f@googlegroups.com:

"Obama and ..."

Not from what I saw. Maybe what I saw was wrong. Point me to the
right information.

Your snipped responses are 100% retarded. From what I see.
 
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:05:00 PM UTC-5, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust
fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade
in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher,

I wouldn't argue that. They are equally worthless. Just a piece of paper. Their value is confidence in the issuing body. Government issued ones are SUPPOSED to be more secure but the fact is we got Moody's starting to pull the plug on us and there are privately issued securities out there that are as secure as many governemnts.

V at a 3% interest rate. Long before actual default, securities would
> be trading like junk bonds.

They usually pull in more interest IF they actually ever do anything. Now if you cam sell them before the shit hits their particular fan you can make out.

And that is what US securities are going to look like if Moody's keeps up its trend of lowering our rating. Now think of paying higher interest on $15 or $20 trillion worth of those.

However some government bonds etc. come with a little agreement, that they can prevent you from cashing them in and have no choice but to let them roll over. Germany pulled that one a few years ago. Germany ! The conceivers of the EU had to do a sorta semi-default ? The economic vertebrae of Europe ? The hell you say...But they did. I doubt many privately issued securities have that little "glitch" in them.

The investors who actually buy US securities
say you're just full of BS. And further, with each passing year, your
"issue" becomes smaller and will be gone in 15 years, when the trust fund
is gone, unless changes are made.

Nuff said.

They sell securities on trust funds ? New one on me but then I am not any big expert on it. Actually if I want to gamble all my money away I'll just start a high stakes poker game.

I know a bit about how economics works, I know more about how poker works. I can play poker but not economics.

If I really had to invest like millions I would use a pro, one of those companies that has a recommended portfolio and all that based on your age, the cost of the habits to which you have become accustomed etc. But I have nobody to whom to leave it when I croak. That will be the day when I cannot work anymore, it'll be me, sleeping pills and whiskey. I'm not using a gun, in fact I gotta figure out who to leave those to, they guys who sold them to me ? I got a really good deal. The family doesn't like guns. Well maybe some of my cousins but most of them have more money than I.

And then the electronics equipment. Maybe a bunch of it to a school, most of the Tek stuff I know who wants that.

But if I had a portfolio, with no heirs, what to do ?
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top