The Next Four Years

[analog]

How about money that people designate for retirement not be taxed ever

actually there's some rationale behind that.

What little i remember of economics class was this:::

Savings in the bank allows economy to grow because of "multiplication of money".
For every dollar on deposit the bank can loan out five or ten, because it's unlikely all the savers will want their money at the same time. Those five or ten dollar loans allow entrepreneurs like Shap to run small businesses, allow us working folks to finance a house, etc and the interest on those five or ten loans covers the interest on the original dollar plus the bank's expenses.

I have to keep it that simple. I confuse easy.

That's why economists complain about the low rate of personal savings in the USA.
It makes us scramble for money to "multiply".'

That was the genius of the 401 law, it caused a lot of saving.
Instead of in the bank it was saved in Wall Street, but you get the idea.

If Joe the Plumber wants to live frugally and save a ton of money in the bank it's good for the economy. His savings, through multiplication of money, finances lots of projects. And by putting his money in the bank he is placing no demands on the economy for luxury goods .
Why not let him keep it there? Tax him when he spends it.
Same goes for Warren Buffet.

That's the attraction of replacing the income tax with a flat expenditure tax.
It's from each according to his ability (and inclination) to spend.
And a lot of tax lawyers will have to find honest work.

Probably ought to tax Wall Street transactions too, after all it's just a casino.
http://mises.org/story/3155

We might become a nation of Henry Thoreau's. I can think of worse things.

a.

PS re "that Ghilarducci article"

More careful perusal of it revealed this phrase:

Accumulations in 401(k) plans and other retirement plans that exist
before the bill goes into effect will be treated under the
old tax rules.

Makes me think the references to "confiscation" may be spin by an overzealous reporter.

Sorry, folks, they had me really going for a while.

[Shapley]

He also seemingly has zero political debt to any one entity, also thanks to the way he waged his campaign.

I disagree. With nearly a half-billion dollar warchest raised, somebody's going to come collecting. I suspect that President-Elect Obama knows who the donors are, even if we don't....

Laws that allow gay marriage also require that full credit to that marriage be given, even by those whose morality will not allow them to do so.

Californians have not, as OT suggests, created a lower class of citizen, they have retained the sanctity of marriage, as it has been defined for centuries. How does this is lower the status of those who have never had that status?

[Haggis@wk]

More careful perusal of it revealed this phrase:

Accumulations in 401(k) plans and other retirement plans that exist
before the bill goes into effect will be treated under the
old tax rules.

Makes me think the references to "confiscation" may be spin by an overzealous reporter.

Sorry, folks, they had me really going for a while.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I interpret that to mean the previous tax breaks won't be retroactively repealed so I won't have to pay the tax on the $1,000 deduction I took last year when I put that $1,000 in my IRA.

But they are still going to take the $1,000 I put in my IRA

"Confiscation" is what immediately comes to my mind.

[analog]

But they are still going to take the $1,000 I put in my IRA

"Confiscation" is what immediately comes to my mind.

The Ghilarducci proposal allows one to continue an existing plan provided it meets their requirements - 5% contribution, employer contribution, and some other things.. If you're not in one they approve of, you'll be forced into theirs. Ghiraducci allows half of it to be inheritable.

I'm no longer working so mine is all "accumulated". I've signed the papers to roll it into my childrens' IRA's when i terminate. So if it's treated under the old rules we'll be okay, provided the kids are in "approved" plans too...

Now I'm notorious for missing details. But that's how I read that Ghiraducci presentation.

Congress could easily springboard from there to outright confiscation.

Do you think they'd dare?

[OperaTenor]

Californians have not, as OT suggests, created a lower class of citizen, they have retained the sanctity of marriage, as it has been defined for centuries. How does this is lower the status of those who have never had that status?

By denying an entire class of people civil liberties the rest of take for granted, constitutional aspects aside.

As for the definition of the sanctity of marriage over the centuries, how far back do you want to go? B.C.?

[Giant Communist Robot]

Californians have not, as OT suggests, created a lower class of citizen, they have retained the sanctity of marriage, as it has been defined for centuries. How does this is lower the status of those who have never had that status?

By denying an entire class of people civil liberties the rest of take for granted, constitutional aspects aside.

As for the definition of the sanctity of marriage over the centuries, how far back do you want to go? B.C.?

Sanctity is, of course, a term relating to religion. Don't come around here and try to shove your religion down my throat, OK? We have a right to different points of view, and with that idea in mind, maybe its time to update the "definition" of marriage.

I'm not the only one who sees this denial as part of a larger class that includes some kinds of persecution for this harmless deviation. Like this: marriage between gays is wrong, therefore gay is wrong, consequently something should be done about it. How much difference is there between "gay marriage is wrong" and "something should be done about it?"

[Giant Communist Robot]

Yesterday I was informed I'm spending was too much time posting. My boss did agree its OK to torment Shapley once in a while.

[Haggis@wk]

Do you think they'd dare?

I can't see any reason for them not to. If there's one thing that will unite Republicans and Democrats, it's the chance to get more money.

Currently, If you have a IRA or 401K you control your life. Some Democrats see what they believe is a unique opportunity to implement a government take over of one of the few aspects of your life they don't control now.

I suspect they will implement an age break so that anyone over a certain age won't be affected, say 50 or 55. That's more a result of fear; seniors vote in record percentages and would be more than likely to vote out anyone that threatens their private retirement accounts.

If you are under 50 I think you are screwed. Pretty soon you will be totally dependent on the state for your medical and retirement benefits.

I suspect we are about to witness the greatest expansion of government in 232 years. And benefit programs are almost impossible to kill once they are enacted. Look at how long it took to kill welfare, a program that cost trillions of dollars and never worked.

[Serenity]

[Haggis@wk]

... until someone told me I was growing too fast, taking up too many resources and all of a sudden, I was a cancerous tumor!

Why would you listen to someone who told you that? Why would you believe them?

[Haggis@wk]

If one day of carping in the blogosphere is enough to get The One to reverse himself, maybe we can work with this guy after all. The Change.gov plan as of yesterday:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The Change.gov plan as of this afternoon:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

I guess they realized that if you can’t even force kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing them to do community service was probably going to be an uphill struggle

[Serenity]

[Giant Communist Robot]

Don't come around here and try to shove your religion down my throat, OK?

This looks harsh this afternoon. After my nap, I think I need to apologize. Sorry.

[Serenity]

[OperaTenor]

Don't come around here and try to shove your religion down my throat, OK?

This looks harsh this afternoon. After my nap, I think I need to apologize. Sorry.

To whom? I couldn't tell if that was directed at Shap or me.

[OperaTenor]

If one day of carping in the blogosphere is enough to get The One to reverse himself, maybe we can work with this guy after all. The Change.gov plan as of yesterday:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

The Change.gov plan as of this afternoon:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

I guess they realized that if you can’t even force kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, forcing them to do community service was probably going to be an uphill struggle

Was that on Drudge or Limbaugh or something? The same meme from three different forums.

[Shapley]

To whom? I couldn't tell if that was directed at Shap or me.

Couldn't be me, I haven't shoved anything towards anyone. I merely explained the basis with which I vote on issues. To the best of my knowledge, I am entitled to vote my conscience, and no religious test shall be administered to determine whether or not I am allowed to vote.

[analog]

...............

[Shapley]

Jesse Jackson had wanted the government to require a percentage of our pension plans to be 'invested' by the government in ways designed not with an eye towards fund growth, but towards 'social justice', i.e. building homes and businesses in poor areas where smart business, cognizant of the risk, would not tread. The government does not fear the risk, since it is other peoples' money they are risking.

President Clinton, or rather the Democrats in Congress during his presidency, had proposed a differenty tack: the government would invest Social Security funds in the market, and use the leverage the acquired as stockholders to force businesses to invest with an eye to 'social justice'. The idea was lost when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. This should not be confused with President Bush' plan to allow younger workers to invest a percentage of their Social Security monies in their own market-based retirment fund. President Bush' idea would have made the individual, not the government, the investor (read 'shareholder').

I suspect, that, with the President and the Congress back in Democrat hands, and in the hands of the most liberal Democrats seen since FDR, we will see those ideas, and worse, come to fruition. If the Republicans can regroup under new, unified, leadership, we may be able to prevent the worst of it, and regain a sane hold on Congress in two years. In the meantime, it's a question of how much damage they will inflict before sanity sets in.

The fact that Al Franken came very close to prevailing, and still yet may prevail, in his senatorial race is an indication of just how far the people in general, and the Democrats in particular, have sunk. Al Franken is a tax cheat who used monies stolen from underprivileged kids to prop up his failing radio venture. That much is known fact, and yet he still has the support of the Democrat party in his venture to become a Senator.

I suspect that the swamp will remain largely uncleared for the next couple of years.....

[OperaTenor]

Yup, the world will end.