patrick.net

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

In ten years, they’ll be open cry markets for the elderly as meat products.

Gramcrackers.. Humburgers.. "Senior Specials".. Sounds dry and stringy. I'll stick to dog food until that runs out.

Heathers was indeed awesome.......

"My teenage angst bullshit now has a body count"

There are two types of entitlements. Those that we pay for and are entitled to, and those that one does not pay for and gets.

Social Security we pay for and it is a paid entitlement.

The kind of entitlements I want cut are the special interest grabs into our social security and other funds to pay for their lavish lifestyles and bridges to nowhere. Wealthy people feel entitled to big government contracts and bail outs, unions feel entitled to our money too. Rest of us are just screwed paying for that ponzi scheme.

ChrisLA says

Social Security we pay for and it is a paid entitlement.

We pay for Social Security. It is a benefit, not an entitlement.

Patrick's point is the word entitlement is used to change perceptions of Social Security to make it appear as though it's a welfare giveaway, a gratuitous handout, a freebie. The use of the word entitlement amounts to a verbal smokescreen used by those who wish to spend that money for other purposes. They want to eliminate the benefit but keep the taxes collected to pay for it and spent that on wars and other special interests.

If anything, an accurate criticism of SS is that we are overcharged for the benefits we eventually receive.

We pay into Medicare for hospitalization the entire time that we are working. That's how the premiums are paid. There's also a part that covers MD & labs, that's Part B. Beneficiaries pay about $100/mo for this benefit, unless they make a chunk of change and then they pay more. They also pay for the drug plan, although that's a fucked up plan because rather than use the massive buying power of millions of Medicare beneficiaries, Medicare contracts with huge-assed insurance companies and not only subsidizes the plans but also pays full price for the same medications that big insurance pays less for on the open market. But I digress.

If you don't pay into Medicare, you can buy into it when you're 65. But it'll cost you up to $700/mo.

Mr T says

Patrick’s point is the word entitlement is used to change perceptions of Social Security to make it appear as though it’s a welfare giveaway, a gratuitous handout, a freebie. The use of the word entitlement amounts to a verbal smokescreen used by those who wish to spend that money for other purposes. They want to eliminate the benefit but keep the taxes collected to pay for it and spent that on wars and other special interests.

It comes across that way to many challenged in English language because they see this word used in both cases. But it does not mean "a welfare giveaway". I guess definition is a moot point at this rate anyway.

Ace:

Isn't it easier to fein mock outrage at nearly everything until your words have no sting? Don't you find that dumb things, like facts and supporting documentation, etc get in the way?

And what the hell is up with your reply? You haven't blamed everything on the president and those damn libs. You make sense.

What's this world coming to?

thunderlips11 says

There’s a guy who is 300lb, smokes two packs a day, and eats nothing but General Tso’s chicken, Spaghetti, and Bread for the past 40 years.

In a society that allows soda machines in it's schools to help the revenue stream and provides meals with not much more nutritional value than what is described here, these types of judgements have no place in these arguments!!

Thunder --

You are entirely right.

>Social Security is much in the news with claims that it’s going bankrupt and cries that benefits must be cut. But that isn’t the case, in fact if everyone simply paid their fair share of the costs — if bosses paid as much of their income as their workers — benefits could be maintained or even increased without raising Social Security tax rates.

>>>Don’t believe it? According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, “If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years.”

See: How To RAISE Social Security Benefits Now

No society on earth has ever taxed income until we started doing so not even the skevy Romans. Taxing your labor is outrageous. I don't care about soda machines. Poor people are poor because they don't work. Stop taxing income then they can feed their own kids steak for lunch.

This crap of everything for the common good is nonsene. This country need to stop dealing with forgeiners for their money. Make their own cash. Take all of these houses these forgien banks are repossesing and their assets. Tell them goodbye. Thanks for you help. You have already sucked enough blood out of us we own all of it now. See this levels up.

I level up I will always level up. There is no reason to be poor anywhere. Jesus didn't work its a fact. See the difference bettween us and a society thats just starting out. We have the assets now. Why not take advantage of it. This is supposdly the nation with the biggest nuts on the earth. Lets start acting like it.

Tax collections have been with us a very long time

In colonial Virginia, for example, citizens were required to attend church once a month. Why? Because that was where the crown collected taxes.

The other items to consider on this are the following

1) Not everyone lives the same ages. If the average african american lives to 68 and works from age 18 onward why would anyone work 50 years just to get 3 years of benefits?

2) What about those that came into the country (legally) and only paid in for the past 10 or 20 years. Not all immigrants are young people.

In reality FDR took a page from Bismark when he created these plans. When Bismark made them it was largely to pacify the country. Life expectancy was only 45 years..meaning that these weren't entitlements but rather incentives to live longer. If we followed the original intent then we would see social security at age 98 (average life expectancy plus 20 years)

Wow, Patrick this site should stay away from the political commentary, it comes off as juvenile and simple-minded. Your politically-leaning story selection and silly headline re-writes are bad enough. The strength of this site has always been the aggregation of interesting and newsworthy articles.

mdovell says

Life expectancy was only 45 years...meaning that these weren’t entitlements but rather incentives to live longer. If we followed the original intent then we would see social security at age 98 (average life expectancy plus 20 years)

That (age 45) must be based on infant mortality, or wars or something, because it was much easier to make it to 70 then, than it is to make it to 100 now. But still, true that the percentage of people paying in, living much past 65 is way greater now.

Mr T says

If anything, an accurate criticism of SS is that we are overcharged for the benefits we eventually receive.

SO far the opposite has been true. Many people that died in recent decades much past early to mid seventies, received much more than they paid in, because of higher than anticipated life expectancies and based on what they were paying in, in the 1940s, 50s, 60s 70s. But it's certainly true now, especially if someone is making toward the top of the interval (or more) of what people pay payroll taxes on.

Well this is quite interesting development.

I'm not sure whether I'm fer it or agin it without more analysis.

But I always thought it would be some other state, or even Federal action, that would challenge the status quo on this.

Amazon will still make less money of course.

The largest difference now is that we all will be paying 10%+ more, and that money will be sent to the government to spend as they desire on their pork and lavish contracts to close and dear friends. This does effectively take more money out of a private sector and puts it into hands of politicians.

Of course I do not believe Amazon can be taxed because they do not have a physical presence in CA, and Federal law requires presence and does supersede CA laws.

I was planning to buy an item on amazon but as of today it is now $154, yesterday it was $99. Thanks legislature I'm obviously going to hold off.

Society is just more aware of politicians and their pet special interest theft from the working man.

The online stores should charge taxes.

If you drive to CA and buy a TV from a physical store, the store will charge you tax even you don't live in CA.

The "No Tax on internet" is really used during the 90s to create an internet stock bubble.

thunderlips11 says

go to Mogadishu where the law of the Jungle reigns.

I don't know of any jungles in Mogadishu.

Taxpayer says

Please stop writing such nonsense. You lose credibility when you say such things.

I didn't write it. Someone who goes by "thunderlips11" wrote it. But I did select it for the home page.

Taxpayer says

Otherwise your scheme becomes robin hood economics.

We already have Robin Hood economics -- except that it's all about taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Especially the capital gains tax. Why do the ultra rich pay only 15% on capital gains created by their workers, when the workers themselves pay 28%? WTF?

Artimus!!!! Yes!!!!! Taxation was only supposed to affect those who made PROFITS, not those who owned NOTHING and LABORED for A BUSINESS.

The ongoing (and worsening) class warfare is directly connected to the taxation on a person's LABOR instead of a company's PROFITS. It cemented the idea that corporations need to be globally competitive (taxed less) and that the middle and under classes will foot the bill (taxed more).

The American Dream was built on the notion that working hard (and long hours) would give one enough capital to take a risk and start a business. Try that on the "minimum wage" (another assault on the under classes.

"Entitlements" are the result of social engineering -- TAXING A PERSON'S LABOR is SOCIALISM. Taxing profits is CAPITALISM. We've lost our way, and now we're paying for FDR's (and many others') lust for political expediency.

Excellent thread by thunderlips11.

The word entitlement gets used a lot in the right-wing propaganda.

The propagandists are trying to exploit the similarity between the expression "sense of entitlement" (which most people see as a negative, something-for-nothing attitude), and "entitlement programs" (which is a something-back-for-what-you-paid-in program).

To some extent the propaganda is working.

And I don't see any hapless tea-partiers screaming about "keep the government out of my entitlement programs", although they have been screaming "keep the government out of medicare". It may not be long before more unintended irony is coming our way.

You are correct Patrick. This framing has one purpose and one purpose only. To part nieve Americans from their benefits.

Indeed, why should Warren Buffet pay less tax as a percentage than his secretary? The Masters of the Universe have spent your hard earned money instead of investing it. They have spent it on stupid crap we don't need and given the "trust fund" which does not really exist IOUs. ( Remember our old friend Al Gore wanted to put it in a lock box.)

Well the big decision is whether to make good on those IOUs or to default. It seems like the powers that be would rather default than make good on the promises they made. Too bad for those expecting benefits that those IOUs are basically the only thing the govt can probably default on without causing them to loose the AAA credit rating. This is probably the only way to keep them from defaulting. Threaten the credit rating of the good ole USofA.

Or can they? Hmmmmm.....

Taxpayer says

Capital gains taxes is 15% for everyone. Workers and CEOs pay the same capital gains taxes.

No, rich people have most of their income in capital gains. Most people must have regular wage income to survive, and that is taxed at a much higher rate, effectively transferring wealth from the middle class to the upper class.

CEO's pay a much lower tax rate because most of their income is in capital gains.

Warren Buffett pointed this out himself. You think he doesn't know what he's talking about?

Taxpayer says

Everyone should pay the same dollar amount in taxes.

No, the very rich benefit far more from government than everyone else. In fact, their prime method of staying rich is using the government to redistribute money from the poor and the middle class to the upper classes, so they don't have to work, while the rest of us work for them.

They do this via government-created corporations, government-enforced monopolies called copyright and patents, government-provided infrastucture and security for their land developments, using government-provided courts for debt collection, and by manipulating laws so that their interest and dividend income is taxed a low rate and has no withholding, while the common workers are forced to pay a higher rate, and to withhold taxes, and on and on.

No government = no rich people.

Rich people aren't all bad, and many justifiably earned a large part of their fortunes, but they use far more government services than the rest of us.

First Wham-O, then Chesapeake Bay Candle company open a factory in the US. What's next? Suntech (yes, the Chinese solar panel manufacturer) just added a third shift to run their plant 24 hours a day -- in Arizona.

shrekgrinch says

The US Navy does what the British Navy only claimed to do…dominate the world’s oceans.

Until it gets sunk in WW3.

which the Chinese and Indians don’t have nor will have for decades as you can’t just create such navies over night.

China mainly needs to exclude us from the Western Pacific and Indonesia. That's where the bodies come in. In WW3 they'd eventually take Australia and hold it, no problem.

In WW3 Japan would probably be coerced by events to swing into China's orbit.

you need an extensive, deep water navy

just more ships hit & sunk by cheap missiles and torpedos.

Joe Sixpack he can’t have his gasoline

No, Joe Sixpack is not going to be able to have his gasoline. Mistakes have consequences, and letting China run up a $3T trade deficit against us has been one signal mistake.

What part of “In the end, access to strategic resources will be determined by military power.” did you not quite grasp?

If the US decides to take on China instead of paying our debts, we will be pariah on the world stage. No trade for you.

The PTB can try to seize access, but this is not a long-term winning strategy. cf. Japan, 1932-45.

We control the oceanic trade lanes instead. That’s all we need.

We can control trade with Nigeria, Ecuador and Venezuela, but without a supertanker inventory it's going to be hard to transport their oil to us.

As for trade with Europe, we'd probably going to have to reduce our buys of Audis for the duration.

China is geostrategically positioned to deny all of Asia from us. If they get India on board, they can close down the Persian Gulf, too.

Iran, Iraq, and KSA would probably be happier selling them their oil than us anyway.

War means they have something to shoot back at us with. The US Navy can stop the oil shipments overnight…de facto nationalized piracy. And there wouldn’t be jack shit anybody else could do about it.

You don't really understand the power of a major continental defense against a "blue water navy" in the age of satellites and missiles.

After year 1 of the war we'd be back to the Monroe Doctrine.

As long as we get the last of the oil, nobody in the US will think we are in the wrong…except for you in your la-la land.

Sure, nearly all Germans and Japanese didn't think they were in the wrong. Didn't give them the strength to win the war.

If a shooting war breaks out between the US and China, the world is going to divide into two camps. 6.5B people against maybe 500M -- US, UK, Canada, Mexico.

Good luck with that.

What planet do you live on? Really.

The one where nations that roll the dice one time too many get squished like a bug.

Taxpayer says

Why cant everyone do that then?

There's only so many TV channels, and viewership is a zero-sum game.

We all can't be TV talk hosts, no.

ChrisLA says

This does effectively take more money out of a private sector and puts it into hands of politicians.

again with the thought-terminating cliches

propose cuts to the "politicians'" spending or STFU plz.

Good bye Silicone Valley hello Vaseline Alley!

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Plant potatoes and teach your family to kill with their hands for the day the ammo runs out.

Wouldn't it be wiser to teach them how to make ammo?

Entitlement isn't "a carefully chosen word to make it look like you expect to get something for nothing." Entitlement as a word has a long history meaning that you have a right to something based upon an existing contract. The rich in England for centuries purchased annuities and entitlements to guarantee their income over time without having to actually manage their money. Social Security was actually conceived as something along the lines of a forced annuity, in which case calling it an entitlement makes perfect sense. You are, through you Social Security taxes, obtaining legal title to be paid a certain amount per month upon retirement.

Unfortunately, considering the way the courts treat Social Security as just another tax and not guaranteed at all, entitlement is too kind a word to refer to the current form of the program.

Taxpayer says

@thunderlips11
In any case, even if you think of SS as a form of insurance, it should be voluntary. SS is mainly for the benefit of poor people. A person making 300 million per year doesn’t need SS benefits. In that case, they should be able to opt out of BOTH SS premiums and SS benefits. All the people clamoring for SS benefits should sign up for this program and contribute.

That is exactly the whole purpose of the program, to make everyone pay into it. Rich end up paying for the poor.

It's only on the first $107,000 of income anyway so not like a multi millionnaires out there are really hurt over it. Rich people pay a lot less in taxes due to loopholes anyway.

SF ace says

Again, “physical presense” is not just having stores and employees, this is the internet age where a broader interpretation of phsycial presense is needed to adopt to the times. In 1970, you needed physical presense to make sales, in the internet age, you don’t.

Using same logic lets pretend I have a blog, when do I start paying income taxes in Wyoming, Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, etc... because I have a blog which therefore gives me universal presence? Should I also pay Chinese their cut in case they start visiting my site?

The whole point of sales taxes is to pay costs of maintaining the area, if your business is not physically present you are not forcing the state to incur hardship of maintaining local police force, etc... and therefore should not be required to pay taxes. Sales taxes aren't there for fun and games, they all were created originally for a purpose.

thunderlips11 says

Chris, you’re quoting Taxpayer, not me.

Yes I know, I was simply explaining this to the "Taxpayer".

ChrisLA says

I was planning to buy an item on amazon but as of today it is now $154, yesterday it was $99. Thanks legislature I’m obviously going to hold off.

Care to elaborate on this Chris? What does the legislature have to do with the 50% increase in price?

Watch out for falling Wages

Troy says

again with the thought-terminating cliches

propose cuts to the “politicians’” spending or STFU plz.

Everything I say to you is a thought terminating cliche when it disagrees with you.

Wal-mart is the main reason that small business have a tough time.

It sells EVERYTHING.
Food, banking service, drug, video games.