patrick.net

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.

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.

I've spent roughly 500 on gas last month. It is insane.

Taxpayer says

My solution is
1. Make it impossible for SS fund to be used for anything other than paying benefits. (aka keep defense contractors away)

Kinda late for that. The entire surplus from the boomers paying in is now in the form of IOUs. The problem all along has been an accounting problem. Spending that money was one thing. We were borrowing money anyway, so borrowing it from ourselves isn't or wasn't the problem.

The problem is that we did not consider it to be deficit spending. Say you had a year where the actual defictit spending was 300 billion, but that year the SS surplus (difference between money coming in and money going out) was 180 billion. Then congress considered the deficit that year to be 120 billion.

So I tend to agree with this as raiding or stealing from the treasury. Remember Al Gores "Lock Box." That was the proposal to stop doing that, and account for it separately.

Taxpayer says

Defense contractors stole from SS; hence it is reasonable to tax any rich person in sight, regardless of how they made their money.

That doesn't sound that far fetched to me. But unfortunately the over 106K crowd includes the very richest of our plutocracy who seem to be hell bent on destroying this country, at least what it was intended to be.

Famous quote from Eisenhower that we all know, but some of us refuse to reflect on:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Obviously I (the commie librul union shill) appreciate Troy's point.

Let's drill down a bit. State Governments are running massive deficits. And your view is that a little more money coming in to offset the red ink can not do that, and will only be spent. The only way to reduce deficits for real, is by cutting govt spending - even if it directly cuts reasonable service jobs (remember unemployment is very high - and is a cost to us in multiple ways (benefits/lost taxes/lost services)

Tax revenue, even when we are in the red, can only cause worse deficits.

OH yeah, and decreasing taxes now (when tax rates near their all time lowest) will cause government revenues to increase and job creation.

Have I summed it up fairly well ?

Did your assertion not prevent you from thinking about most of this? I think "thought terminating" was very accurate. You buy and sell that stuff. (or do you just sell it ?)

I can predict exactly where Chris is likely to go now. (hint: unions) Speaking of thought terminating cliches.

I am not suggesting any new taxes. But, my friend is conducting business using Ebay and Craigslist. He has paid zero tax on tens of thousands of dollars of sales and income probably.
The funny thing is he complains bitterly about Ebay, but I sometimes remind him that having almost free worldwide advertisement is worth something.
He is escaping paying any taxes at all, but he strangely believes the government may someday confiscate financial assets of everyone, so he has some silver coins in his safe. He had some gold coins but had to sell them a few years ago.
He also is bitter about the value of his house/land dropping, and told me to buy his neighbor's 11 acre lot. The guy was first asking about $1 million.
"About $100,000 an acre for Santa Cruz woods? This isn't the Napa Valley you know."
Now the guy is asking about $500,000. Down and down she goes.

So how is California going to go about enforcing a California State Law on a business in another state?

There have been multiple court cases regarding this same issue involving many different states and businesses and they all turned out the same. A state can't force a business in another state to collect taxes on their behalf.

I once wrote software for a National mail order catalog company.
Very often I would have to run all kind of reports for official offices from all kinds of states. Many were about sales tax.
Of course there was already Florida sales tax, we paid sales tax on all Florida customers, but we would have also send other states sales tax, that had sales tax, when residents from those states bought from us.

We used to fill up when we went for gas in either of our two vehicles.
I told my wife a few months ago, only put in 20 bucks, regardless how much gas costs. If we keep filling up the tank, then the Oil Bastards at the Oil companies will break their goddamn arms patting them selves on the back that profits are up, if we piss 70-90 dollars down the gas tank. I'm not contributing to my own fuckification.

marcus says

But unfortunately the over 106K crowd includes the very richest of our plutocracy who seem to be hell bent on destroying this country, at least what it was intended to be.

Shame on you for attacking my end-of-year SS tax holiday.

marcus says

Let’s drill down a bit. State Governments are running massive deficits. And your view is that a little more money coming in to offset the red ink can not do that, and will only be spent. The only way to reduce deficits for real, is by cutting govt spending - even if it directly cuts reasonable service jobs (remember unemployment is very high - and is a cost to us in multiple ways (benefits/lost taxes/lost services)

Tax revenue, even when we are in the red, can only cause worse deficits.

OH yeah, and decreasing taxes now (when tax rates near their all time lowest) will cause government revenues to increase and job creation.

Have I summed it up fairly well ?

Not even close there Marcus. You still don't get it at all. You still have a gullible belief that government cares about you and that these goons can create jobs.

Government officials in CA are a bottomless pit of spending. You give them a dollar they spend 5 and ask for 10 next time around, and that circle keeps going. All they do is spend other peoples money. Government officials are not looking out for the best of the state, mainly for their own well being and their closest friends and biggest campaign donors.

This tax will hit the middle class and the poor further and take money out of private sector trickling down entire supply chain of businesses.

If I don't buy a product because it gets too expensive due to taxes, the store won't get paid, their staff wont get paid, the engineer who designs the product wont get paid, the manufacturer wont get paid, the marketing guru wont get paid, the truck driver whose job is to deliver wont get paid, the payment processor wont get paid, the customer service guy wont get paid... etc... But politicians will now have more money to hand out to their closest friends continuing a vicious cycle of screwing everyone for the benefit of the few.

We in CA go through this every time around and around.

Tenouncetrout says

We used to fill up when we went for gas in either of our two vehicles.

I told my wife a few months ago, only put in 20 bucks, regardless how much gas costs. If we keep filling up the tank, then the Oil Bastards at the Oil companies will break their goddamn arms patting them selves on the back that profits are up, if we piss 70-90 dollars down the gas tank. I’m not contributing to my own fuckification.

we are doing the same. it is just insane how much it costs now. for me alone it costs around 500/month, my wife about half of that. ~40% of income is taxes, $750 on gas monthly. At this rate I haven't bought anything yet or fed my family and already lost a huge chunk of my income. Lovely how this system works.

thunderlips11 says

My point is not about Sex and Violence being permitted, there’s plenty of it today. It’s about the context of sex and violence and what it supports/opposes.

What do you think?

The Media are changing. The same pop music stations which played "I shot the sherriff" later played Frank Sinatra's "New York, New York". Now what was the mainstream media is being eclipsed by niche media and individualized media.

Everything will be released and it hardly matters what the surviving mass media companies do or don't do.

SS (& mediaid etc) was initially created to fund a portion of people’s retirement. Its purpose is to ensure that the basic needs were covered.

The keys are "a portion" and "basic needs". As time goes on, the mindless narcistic public wants "all portion" and then some, and luxuaries become "basic needs". Say, your heart has a problem it beats erratically, well, in the past you died as you supposed to. But now, you want it to be "basic coverage".

Think of your own situation, if you buy everything you "want", there is no money left to support yourself. But of couse, Joe Bloe wants government to make others pay more so he can get to buy what he wants.