Charles Koch to Friedrich Hayek: Use Social Security - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

aklim · #31 09-30-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

In that same post, I said this:

I wouldn't read any significance into my ignorance of how much you paid in taxes. That your accountant doesn't know is more troubling. I don't know where you get the idea that nobody knows "how much taxes [you] paid if [you] made 100K." Why wouldn't you just look at the tax tables and figure it out?

And some comes out of your (the purchaser) pocket all the way to the final destination.

Any fool can look at the tax tables even high school kid. What nobody has been able to do is to give me more information than is in the tax tables. Feel free to give me an accountant of YOUR choosing that can tabulate each and every transaction from beginning to end and tell me all the taxes I paid along the way. Take the coffee I bought from Starbucks this morning. At each and every stage, they paid a tax of some sort. How would you calculate that? Multiply that complexity for each and every product I bought over the year and see if you can track it from the origin point on.

One for time for clarity. NOBODY I KNOW OF CAN CALCULATE all the taxes I paid throughout the year. If you can do that for yourself, please show the working. As my HS Calc instructor used to say "No working + right answer = NO POINTS".

Honus · #32 09-30-2011, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

And some comes out of your (the purchaser) pocket all the way to the final destination...

True.

Quote:

...One for time for clarity. NOBODY I KNOW OF CAN CALCULATE all the taxes I paid throughout the year. If you can do that for yourself, please show the working. As my HS Calc instructor used to say "No working + right answer = NO POINTS".

Now I follow you. I think you threw me off track with the reference the $100K in income.

The taxes you paid would be easy to calculate if you kept records of every transaction. The amount you paid indirectly in the form of higher prices on goods made by companies trying to recoup their tax expenses would be much tougher to calculate. Taking that analysis all the way back to the beginning might well be impossible. I don't know.

Botnst · #33 09-30-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

They are definitely a tax. Your employer should be showing them on your pay stub along with the other things deducted from your pay.That's pretty close, except one plan is backed by Botnst and has no track record, the other is backed by the United States of America and has a track record of preventing untold numbers of Americans from falling into poverty for about 75 years or so. No offense, but I think I will go with the current plan.

My debt is much less than my total income. I could pay-off all of my debts within a few months, maybe a year, without going into my retirement savings.

In order for the gov to pay off its debts it would have to sell real property since it has no investments. It would be an interesting exercise to see if the gov has enough total assets (real and capital) that it could pay off the national debt through sale. I have never seen anybody try that.

Let's start with DoD. Naval vessels -- carriers are several billion a pop to build, same with subs, I think. Smaller ships, not so much. Gotta depreciate them too, I guess. Then there's the air force. And all of the land owned by the army and navy (the USMC and Air Force don't actually own the land their bases are on, IIRC). Probably get a couple trillion out of DoD.

DoI has a lot of land out west and in Alaska, some of which has producing minerals. Also offshore seafloor. Maybe several trillion?

The remainder don't have as much as those two.

aklim · #34 09-30-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

True.Now I follow you. I think you threw me off track with the reference the $100K in income.

The taxes you paid would be easy to calculate if you kept records of every transaction. The amount you paid indirectly in the form of higher prices on goods made by companies trying to recoup their tax expenses would be much tougher to calculate. Taking that analysis all the way back to the beginning might well be impossible. I don't know.

The 100K income is a part of the taxes I paid. As you said, it is impossible to track it to the beginning. Without that part, it becomes impossible to know how much you or I paid as a whole in taxes. So it is actually a simple game. I lower your IRS taxes (which you can calculate) and make you happy, vote me in, name your first born after me, etc, etc but I make it up in other ways. Another example would be to grandstand by giving you $1 off a gallon of milk, only to add it back in the other staples you have to buy. But because you can see the $1 off but you can't see the increase in other prices, you think I am being generous.

It's an old strategy. Divide and conquer. OTOH, if they removed all taxes, gave no deductions and just do a POS tax, you will KNOW what you paid and each increase will be glaringly apparent and they cannot play shell games. You cannot hide it in the city tax, stadium tax, dog catcher tax, recycle tax, etc, etc. Each tax like SS tax for instance simply becomes yet another cup under which to hide the nut and increase our complexity, all at the nice sounding ideal of helping some poor folk overcome their bad mistakes.

You wouldn't want Grandpa and Grandma to go without heat, would you? Utility company is charged to take money for that from paying customers. Sounds good till you find out that it pays for the DA's office which should be paid out of another fund. Road tax from fuel. Fair enough. You use the roads and thus should pay for their maintenance. However, 40-60 cents on the dollar goes somewhere else. So, is this the group you think is more trustworthy than Bot? Really? If I had to choose, I would rather give Bot my money to handle than the govt. Bot is human and therefore corruptible. The govt is made up of many individuals and thus even more corruptible in a geometric fashion. Bot might have NO history and is unproven. Congress is a proven crook made up of crooks as we can see when they play games. Now explain again, why you trust a druggie to guard the pharmacy?

aklim · #35 09-30-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

My debt is much less than my total income. I could pay-off all of my debts within a few months, maybe a year, without going into my retirement savings.

In order for the gov to pay off its debts it would have to sell real property since it has no investments. It would be an interesting exercise to see if the gov has enough total assets (real and capital) that it could pay off the national debt through sale. I have never seen anybody try that.

Let's start with DoD. Naval vessels -- carriers are several billion a pop to build, same with subs, I think. Smaller ships, not so much. Gotta depreciate them too, I guess. Then there's the air force. And all of the land owned by the army and navy (the USMC and Air Force don't actually own the land their bases are on, IIRC). Probably get a couple trillion out of DoD.

DoI has a lot of land out west and in Alaska, some of which has producing minerals. Also offshore seafloor. Maybe several trillion?

The remainder don't have as much as those two.

Ain't that kinda tricky? Does the govt own the naval vessels or do the taxpayers own it? If it is the latter, it is like me selling your car to pay my debts.

Honus · #36 09-30-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

My debt is much less than my total income. I could pay-off all of my debts within a few months, maybe a year, without going into my retirement savings.

In order for the gov to pay off its debts it would have to sell real property since it has no investments. It would be an interesting exercise to see if the gov has enough total assets (real and capital) that it could pay off the national debt through sale. I have never seen anybody try that.

Let's start with DoD. Naval vessels -- carriers are several billion a pop to build, same with subs, I think. Smaller ships, not so much. Gotta depreciate them too, I guess. Then there's the air force. And all of the land owned by the army and navy (the USMC and Air Force don't actually own the land their bases are on, IIRC). Probably get a couple trillion out of DoD.

DoI has a lot of land out west and in Alaska, some of which has producing minerals. Also offshore seafloor. Maybe several trillion?

The remainder don't have as much as those two.

All quite admirable (I mean that), but I when it comes to backing up my Social Security benefits, I think I will stick with the United States of America instead of you. No offense intended.

Botnst · #37 09-30-2011, 02:43 PM

That's the difference between an analogy and a direct argument.

A proper argument would be to compare a citizen who is a spendthrift and deeply in debt with somebody who is neither. Which would you prefer to buy insurance from?

So by analogy, I would prefer to buy insurance from a properly thrifty government over a government massively in debt. Since i have no choice in government (only leadership) I believe it is right a proper to force gov to live within its means.

Balance the budget, pay off the debt. Then shop for a new addition.

That's how I buy something. I expect no less of my government.

aklim · #38 09-30-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

All quite admirable (I mean that), but I when it comes to backing up my Social Security benefits, I think I will stick with the United States of America instead of you. No offense intended.

So you like shell games that congress plays with money by paying out here and sticking you there but you don't like someone with an unproven record. IOW, you prefer a proven dishonest crook as long as you win in one game, even though it is probably at the expense of several more as opposed to a person that is unproven either way. Interesting. Sounds like a lot of people who go bragging about their $4000 win at the casino last week but don't count all the times they lost money at that same venue.

aklim · #39 09-30-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Since i have no choice in government (only leadership)

Not entirely true. You have a choice of leadership from those who would run and not the best man for the job. IOW, your choice is from the LOTE. IOW, it isn't simply like you can pick the best man for the job.

Honus · #40 09-30-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That's the difference between an analogy and a direct argument.

A proper argument would be to compare a citizen who is a spendthrift and deeply in debt with somebody who is neither. Which would you prefer to buy insurance from?

So by analogy, I would prefer to buy insurance from a properly thrifty government over a government massively in debt. Since i have no choice in government (only leadership) I believe it is right a proper to force gov to live within its means.

Balance the budget, pay off the debt. Then shop for a new addition.

That's how I buy something. I expect no less of my government.

I understand all that, although I don't agree that individual finances are analogous to government finances. Governments should run deficits from time to time.

If you will recall, I mentioned the United States' creditworthiness in response to your hypothetical situation where I would give you my social security payments, you would buy a refrigerator with the money, and give me an IOU. You said that is like Social Security. I said it's not like Social Security because, AFAIK, you are not the United States.

Honus · #41 09-30-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

So you like shell games that congress plays with money by paying out here and sticking you there but you don't like someone with an unproven record. IOW, you prefer a proven dishonest crook as long as you win in one game, even though it is probably at the expense of several more as opposed to a person that is unproven either way. Interesting. Sounds like a lot of people who go bragging about their $4000 win at the casino last week but don't count all the times they lost money at that same venue.

None of that follows from what I said. I disagree with every bit of that post.

aklim · #42 09-30-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I understand all that, although I don't agree that individual finances are analogous to government finances. Governments should run deficits from time to time.

If you will recall, I mentioned the United States' creditworthiness in response to your hypothetical situation where I would give you my social security payments, you would buy a refrigerator with the money, and give me an IOU. You said that is like Social Security. I said it's not like Social Security because, AFAIK, you are not the United States.

Define "time to time". If you mean that every now and then, it runs a break even or surplus WITH NO ACCOUNTING TRICKS, fair enough. Lets look on the last few decades and see their recent history, shall we?

IOW, a true Ponzi scheme is only when someone else besides the govt runs it?

Botnst · #43 09-30-2011, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I understand all that, although I don't agree that individual finances are analogous to government finances. Governments should run deficits from time to time.

If you will recall, I mentioned the United States' creditworthiness in response to your hypothetical situation where I would give you my social security payments, you would buy a refrigerator with the money, and give me an IOU. You said that is like Social Security. I said it's not like Social Security because, AFAIK, you are not the United States.

I know what you meant to convey but in fact, I am the United States. As are you. I know this because it would not exist without the citizens. Besides, I py, it's mine.

There is no reason, other than habit and faith, to invest in the USA. It is a horrible return on investment because it inflates the value of its currency to pay back debt at an a rate indexed by the inflation in created. Ron Paul presents a wonderful example when he holds up a silver dime and says, "It's worth $3.50, the value of a gallon of gas. " Then he holds up a current dime and says, "This is worth 10 cents, 1/35th of a gallon of gas." The government pays people with a fiction, debt, and then we in turn pay each other with the same fictional debt. This will continue only as long as we believe the fiction. That's okay with me right now. I still believe. But when people no longer believe we have Weimar, Argentina and Zimbabwe.

aklim · #44 09-30-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

None of that follows from what I said. I disagree with every bit of that post.

Lets break it down and tell me what you disagree with.

Bot - No proven track record of being a good guy or not except his handling of his personal finances. Easily verified with an accountant

Govt - Proven track record of playing games and still can't make ends meet without accounting tricks

Which one to trust and why?

Honus · #45 09-30-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Lets break it down and tell me what you disagree with.

Bot - No proven track record of being a good guy or not except his handling of his personal finances. Easily verified with an accountant

Govt - Proven track record of playing games and still can't make ends meet without accounting tricks

Which one to trust and why?

Wait a minute. You twist my words and come up with this list of things that I supposedly agree with, and now I'm supposed to spend my afternoon breaking it down and telling you what I disagree with? No, thank you.