Thanks for clarifying the personal Income Tax. When I think of tax I mean the whole scope of taxation including Corporate, Dividend, Capital Gains, Other forms of Sales tax, Estate (Death), etc. etc. Thats where I see significant tax increase also if the plans their are talking about are actually implemented.

As far as the Social Security goes that is how I was understanding that it worked. When reading your description it was reminiscent of a type of pyramid scheme (curiously, I looked that up I found that economist Thomas Sowell argues in his books and columns that Social Security is a pyramid scheme).

Is all I am saying on that issue is that I agree with Alan Greenspan that it should be privatized slowly over time. This may seem like a position of not caring for the older retirees when in fact its the opposite case. I understand you are saying it’s an “insurance” account. At the basic level, all I am saying is our parents or grandparents (and we too once we arrive at retirement) would have enjoyed much greater retirement and standards of living if that money was placed into a private retirement accounts as opposed to an insurance account that has questionable solvency ending in 2055 according to your information.

I wholeheartedly agree that programs such as those you describe are more effective at lifting people out of poverty than no-strings-attached handouts. Maybe the debate should be about how the state should go about reducing poverty, rather than whether it has any business doing so in the first place.

The point of my earlier comment was merely that the argument that government should not involve itself in reducing poverty because it usurps the citizens’ free agency is unpersuasive.

Darren

“The social security program is also a fruit of the New Deal which I wish I didn’t have to put my retirement money into because the long run returns are pitiful”

Social Security is not an investment program - it is in essence a group insurance program much as such I (as a S.S. tax payer) am currently paying for my retired parents and all other retirees, or disabled people collecting social security benefits…We are not however putting that S.S. tax into a retirement account that is a misunderstanding many people have…if we were to have access to the S.S. tax taken out of our income then millions of retired people would lose their benefits…I repeat S.S. is an insurance program not a retirement investment. And as such it has been the most successful social program this nation has ever embarked upon. Your S.S. tax is not being put into a savings account for when you retire, it is being combined with 2 other workers to pay for 1 retiree…it needs change and repair but over all it works and will be solvent (according to the Federal S.S. admin) until at least 2055.

Second…

“If a democrat gets elected which is a possibility considering the political climate, everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale”

Yes taxes will be raised on those in the upper income bracket starting with the repeal of Bush’s tax cuts that were given to the top 3%-10% of our nations citizens - this will in turn put about $75 billion dollars back into the economy overnight - talk about stimulus - Republican tax cuts are always geared toward those higher income earners, Democrats tend to tax those higher incomes at a higher rate (see: Clinton economy successes at clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html)

In NY where I live - because I make less than 150k a year I pay 21% of income in taxes - those who make 150k or more pay only 16% - this was brought about during Republican Governor Pataki’s 12 yr administration…

So in the end the tax system under Democrats is a progressive one Republicans tend to be regressive (My Republican County Exec just tried to raise the sales tax in our County - that’s one of the most regressive forms of taxation and thankfully her efforst failed) so your statement that “everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale” isn’t accurate…

Thanks for that comment.

D

“Read your history books the New Deal saved the Country.”

Chad, I mentioned that about the New Deal programs because at the university I attend during an economics course we went through and analyzed the outcome of each New Deal program that was created. The professor of the course indicated that on an economic basis, the grand majority of those programs may have actually lengthened out the depression instead of contracting it. So those words aren’t mine, they are my professors and I would be happy to pass along any history books to him that you would recommend on the topic. The social security program is also a fruit of the New Deal which I wish I didn’t have to put my retirement money into because the long run returns are pitiful. It is estimated that my social security will pay for only about 10% to 12% of my retirement needs.

Chad, correct, there have been bipartisan efforts to increase military spending during wartime.

At a very basic economic level and generally speaking with very few notable and necessary exceptions, the free people participating in the free markets can more efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the overall economy. That has been proven using economic modeling in a number of cases. The exceptions to this confirm the rule in most cases.

If a democrat gets elected which is a possibility considering the political climate, everyone’s taxes are going increase on a very large scale (this is my humble opinion but maybe I am wrong) which in turn removes those resources from the private markets and places them under government control. I have been watching the democratic debates in the spirit of first seek to understand then to be understood. I may have missed it, but for the most part I haven’t heard how they are going to pay for the things they are talking about. Nor I have ever heard anyone tell us how much taxes are going to be raised and for how long. I could be wrong about that but if you have heard it let me know. I think it was Hillary that admitted her programs are too expensive for the government to paraphrase.

“There are compelling societal reasons for eliminating poverty, just as there are for building roads, funding police departments, and building an army.”

Steve, I agree wholeheartedly that ridding the world of the scourge of poverty is vital to society. We have been commanded to assist in this important undertaking. It’s not a debate about whether that should be done but rather what is the best method for eliminating it.

At the university business school I attend they have spearheaded various programs that are showing some very positive signs of helping eliminate poverty. You may have heard of some of these including micro-lending and micro-franchising (this is being spearheaded at the university I am in and it’s showing amazing signs of assisting in this problem in Africa right now). It is estimated that some 100,000,000 people have been lifted out of poverty due to the principles involved in these programs so far.

Each of these programs are similar in the way that the Perpetual Education Fund (church sponsored fund) works which is showing very positive results in assisting third-world returned missionaries to get an education and improve their lives. They take full responsibility for the money they receive to pay it back after their education. This is not a free handout (teach a man to fish, don’t just give him a fish principle). Each recipient maintains dignity and is able to better his life in a fascinatingly enormous way.

Take care,

Darren

Why should I think that electing a Republican again would lead to any of the changes that would eliminate the “big-slow-inefficient-government-bureaucracy” or end the tyrannical oppresive compulsion complained about.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels if you ask me. Go Dems.