231–240 of 359 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are those numbers inflation adjusted?
They are not. I took them directly from USAFacts[0], and according to their methodologies[1], they have not adjusted for inflation either. [0] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/spending?comparison=... [1] http://usafacts.org/methodology
I sometimes think that half the reason political polarization has gotten so bad is that politicians aren’t citing the same data. One lobbying group can provide one dataset, and that’ll get picked up by Democrats to support their idea. Another lobbying group will provide another dataset, and that’ll get used by Republicans for their counterarguments.
If this site could become the definitive source of data—the one that both sides of the aisle trust—there’d be a common data source in policy talks. That could lead to consensus much quicker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just one simple example would be that there is an untaxed amount, let's say $25k (or whatever the poverty level is) and everything above is 20%.
That is still regressive. A truly progressive tax system would be similar to what we have now but with much fewer deductions that the affluent can use to lower their effective tax rate. (Oft cited that warren buffet has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary because of all the deductions and loopholes.) Not to mention that there is a huge misunderstanding of how progressive tax rates work. A very affluent busi…
No one would say anything even remotely like, "well, my practice is going well, I saw 20 patients today, oh what rewarding work, but what with these taxes I'll just stay home".
Every single wealthy person I've ever known, their motivation has been the thing they do first, the money a distant second. Maybe I just know pretty decent wealthy people, I dunno.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a case of seeing what you want to see. According to the Trustees Report, SS is only in deficit if you don't factor in interest income. [1] It's projected to deplete its trust fund in 2034. Please resist the urge to argue that the trust fund doesn't exist. That 2034 date can easily be extended through minor tweaks, check out any of the ideas from the late Robert M. Ball. The flat tax is regressive. Reg…
The time for fixing Social Security with "minor tweaks" has passed, the problem moving forward is Demographics >Social Security's total income is projected to exceed its total cost through 2019, as it has since 1982. The 2015 surplus of total income relative to cost was $23 billion. However, when interest income is excluded, Social Security's cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income throughout the projecti…
Eh, if it makes it past the Boomers (which it does in the low-cost estimate in recent trustees reports, but not in the intermediate- or high-cost estimates; so risky-but-plausible with no intervention, certainly achievable with minor tweaks) it's fine, demographically, for the foreseeable future; Gen X is a demographic trough, and the Millennial generation is a gentler boom than the Boomers.
Can anyone give me some intuition into why 77k people are employed by the Social Security Administration? [1] That's bigger than Google, and I didn't think their scope was that wide. [1] http://usafacts.org/government-finances/employment?compariso... under "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity". The combined count is "n/a" - maybe that's because the State & Local count has some overlap with…
For comparison, there are 665k certified practicing accountants in the US.
I'm seeing many things (if this data is accurate, which assuming it is as it's from all government sources) and trends that go against a large percentage of what the media on both sides are perpetuating. That is my first takeaway at a glance. My second takeaway at a glance is the giant problem that is Social Security. It's been said over and over, and the aggregation of more data into charts comes to the same conclus…
"My second takeaway at a glance is the giant problem that is Social Security. [...] A $405 B shortfall on SS in 2015. If that was at least half, we would actually not be running a deficit. We would have a budget surplus if we actually made Social Security/other Gov. retirement program replacement actually sustain itself perpetually." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ yes, the first step is to remove the cap on social security withholdin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't believe the tax burden on the lower classes in the US has ever been lessened by increased rates at the top levels. I'll be frank. I have no reason to believe anyone is honest (not even myself). While we like to say that we are not savage animals, we are. CGP Grey made a video https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?t=1072 based on The Dictator's Handbook I read an article on some online magazine which argued that the…
> Just to put things in simple terms, this $200B does not include money Apple made by selling iPhones in the US, right? It only includes money Apple made by selling iPhones in other countries? I don't get why we obsess so much over it. US economy is large enough. If they want to bring this money back to the US or they want to give money to their owners/stock holders, they can pay the tax at that time? I don't have a…
This is a really unusual part of the US tax code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The time for fixing Social Security with "minor tweaks" has passed, the problem moving forward is Demographics >Social Security's total income is projected to exceed its total cost through 2019, as it has since 1982. The 2015 surplus of total income relative to cost was $23 billion. However, when interest income is excluded, Social Security's cost is projected to exceed its non-interest income throughout the projecti…
> The time for fixing Social Security with "minor tweaks" has passed, the problem moving forward is Demographics Eh, if it makes it past the Boomers (which it does in the low-cost estimate in recent trustees reports, but not in the intermediate- or high-cost estimates; so risky-but-plausible with no intervention, certainly achievable with minor tweaks) it's fine, demographically, for the foreseeable future; Gen X is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right. I should have stated it differently when saying Obama. I only glanced at it at first too. And most likely, the jump during 2000 - 2010 is most likely attributed to the economic recession. Which was during the Obama administration. Despite why the recession happened, it was decided to increase it anyway at a higher rate than the previous decade. Although it seems that state and local governments increase…
I don't understand your argument here either. "Jumps during 2000-2010 were due to 'the economic recession'. Which was during 'the Obama administration'"? * There was more than one recession in the time period you're talking about. * The Great Recession did not in fact start during the Obama administration. * There was a recession at the beginning of Bush's term and at the end of it, but most of Bush's term occurred d…
1. The 2001 was recession was minuscule to the 2008/09 one.
2. I never once said the recession "started" during his administration, I said the recession was during, that's it. Big difference.
3-4. The entire point was that the majority of the increases between the years of 2000-2010 were most likely between 2008-2010. I never made any correlation that increases in benefits were a cause of the recession. I said "despite why it happened" to basically say I'm not talking about or blaming anyone for the reasons of why it happened, just the actions that were taken after it.