Tag: taxes

–Why Medicare and Social Security are not “adequately financed”

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Soon you will read about this new report:

2010 Social Security Trustees Report, August 6, 2010: “. . . the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively. . . significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed .”

By:
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee

For Mr. Geithner et al, “adequately financed,” means tax revenues will equal or exceed spending. When, spending exceeds taxes, Medicare and Social Security will be “inadequately financed,” i.e insolvent.

To put it gently, Mr. Geithner et al do not know what they are talking about.

Visualize a scenario where there are zero federal taxes. The federal government has no income, not even any money, yet sends you a check for $10 trillion dollars. You deposit the check in your bank. Will the check bounce? No. Your bank will send the check to the Treasury, which will credit your bank and debit its own balance sheets for $10 trillion. The bank now has $10 trillion, which it credits to your account, allowing you to buy a few thousand Rolls Royces or the State of Montana, whichever you prefer.

The government can send you checks endlessly, in any amount. With each check, the government merely debits its balance sheet and credits your bank account. The government balance sheet is just a score sheet, though it misleadingly is called “debt.” Whether that score sheet reads $10 trillion or $100 trillion makes no difference to the score sheet. The only limit is the artificial “debt limit,” on which Congress votes periodically. There is no functional limit on what any balance sheet can read. The government can write a check of any size, despite zero taxes, credit your account for any amount, and enter any amount into its score sheet.

Taxes may be levied for several social reasons (cigarette and liquor taxes are examples), but supplying the government with spending money is not one of them. The government creates money by spending. It does not use tax money. Therefore, all federal debt is sustainable, endlessly.

Because Social Security and Medicare are federal agencies, the government can support them endlessly, without any FICA taxes at all, merely by mailing checks. Sadly, the wrongheaded beliefs of Mr. Geithner et al have led to the deterioration of Social Security and Medicare benefits.

At one time, the “normal retirement age for Social Security benefits was 65. Today, it is age 67 for people born after 1969. Mr. Geithner’s kind of reasoning has cost Americans two years worth of benefits. Further, these benefits are subject to income tax. Thus, you pay tax on your FICA payments and pay tax again on your benefits – a double tax. Finally, despite paying FICA taxes for years, the day you die all benefits cease. You could pay FICA for 40 years, and if you die at age 60, your estate will receive nothing – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

Medicare payments also are so restricted many Americans purchase supplementary insurance to cover what Medicare does not – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

We pay penalties for believing taxes support federal spending. We pay penalties for believing Medicare and Social Security could go bankrupt unless FICA is increased or benefits reduced. We pay penalties for believing the federal deficits are “unsustainable.” We pay penalties for the misinformation coming from our leaders. We pay penalties for believing them.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–There is no wasteful federal spending

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

As usual, some stimulus spending has been criticized because it is “wasteful” and doesn’t create jobs. Here are a couple examples published recently:

“ $1.9 million spent to photograph ants has created two jobs.. Other ant research stimulus projects: $451,000 has created one job, $276,000 created six one-hundredths of a job, and $800,000 created no jobs. The $144,000 spent to study the behavior of monkeys on cocaine created four-tenths of a job. To study why monkeys respond to unfairness cost $677,000 – and has created no jobs yet.”

I am reminded of former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. William Proxmire, who published his monthly “Golden Fleece” awards for what he considered wasteful spending. He often was criticized for opposing basic research he did not understand, for instance NASA, SETI and the Aspen Movie Map. Many worthwhile, federal research projects have been killed because some politician thought they were frivolous. This is especially true of basic research, where the ultimate benefits are yet to be determined.

The notorious Mansfield Amendment prohibited the Defense Department from carrying out “any research project or study unless such project or study has a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military function.” Such Congressional meddling in research virtually eliminates discoveries based on serendipity.

Whether or not you consider ant research to be wasteful, it is highly unlikely that $1.9 million created only two jobs. Let’s speculate on where that $1.9 million might have gone. Photographers, photographic equipment, rent, researchers, travel, computers, chemistry equipment – all of which helped various businesses and people. Then those businesses and people spent the money they received on things like food, clothing, shelter and transportation, all of which helped more people and businesses. And on and on and on. In a similar vein, the monkey research expenses were paid to people and businesses.

In short, when the government spends money, that money costs you nothing. (Taxes do not pay for the spending of a monetarily sovereign nation.) In fact, that spending adds money to the economy, and that money circulates throughout the economy, stimulating as it goes. Every time the federal government spends, people and businesses benefit, and in turn these people and businesses spend, which benefits more people and businesses. Ultimately, all federal spending creates jobs.

There always will be a politician who tries to look heroic and prudent, by pointing out what he considers to be wasteful spending. While state and local governments, which do not have the unlimited ability to create money, can spend wastefully, it almost is impossible for any federal spending to be wasteful, even in cases where the original expenditure seemed frivolous in some eyes. Even spending for the notorious Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” would have benefitted the economy by pumping money into the hands of people and businesses.

Good rule of thumb: The more federal spending, the healthier the economy. Reduced growth in federal spending has resulted in nearly every recession and depression, and increased federal spending dragged this economy out of the recession.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–America, wake up

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

“Congress to Weigh Options for Reducing Federal Debt

Hard choices on Social Security, Medicare, defense and taxes can’t be avoided much longer. By Richard DeKaser, Contributing Economist, The Kiplinger Letter
July 30, 2010

Is Washington serious about tackling the federal debt? […] The key is Obama’s debt commission. Its short-term mission is to balance the budget by 2015 — not counting interest on the swelling national debt. That would slash the annual deficits by two-thirds, to about $500 billion. The long-term goal: Achieve fiscal sustainability, which is generally seen as holding debt at something under the equivalent of 65% of gross domestic product (GDP).”

Let’s get this straight. With a balanced budget, even minuscule inflation would reduce the amount of real money in the economy. Historically, recessions follow low deficit growth, and recoveries correspond with high deficit growth. So why aim for a balanced budget? No evidence, just anthropomorphic economics disease.

What makes fiscal sustainability 65% of GDP? No evidence. The DEBT/GDP ratio is meaningless – an apples/oranges comparison with zero significance. And where did 65% come from? Nowhere. Just popped into someone’s head. And that “pop” will cost you plenty.

The ignorant article continues:

“Recommendations in four areas are likely:

“Social Security. . . .Gradually raise the retirement age to 68, calculate benefits using the Consumer Price Index instead of wage inflation and shave a half point from annual cost-of-living increases would knock $548 billion off the deficit in 2040, for example. Another possibility is to raise the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes, perhaps to 90% of earnings for everyone. That would juice up incoming revenue.”

If someone told you they would cut your Social Security payment, would you at least ask, “Why?” And if the answer were, “The government can’t afford it,” would you at least say, “Show me the evidence”? You never have seen any evidence except for unsubstantiated statements that the debt is too big. This is the same answer you have received since 1971. Wrong then; wrong now.

The ignorant article continues:

“Health care. . . apply a means test for Medicare and revise the recently passed health care law.” Yes, we’re going to cut your Medicare payments, reduce your doctors’ payments and require you to prove you need the money. Do you care? Naw. And don’t even bother to prove the government can’t afford the expense. I trust you. Just take my money and reduce the number of doctors. I love pain.

More from the ignorant article:

“Other government spending. . . A full-scale review is already under way, including plans to forgo or scale back big weapons systems — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the C-17 transport and more. More base closings, especially abroad, are also possible.” Either we need these things for defense or we don’t. Or are you saying the unsupported notion that the government is broke trumps American defense initiatives?

And finally, my favorite ignorant paragraph:

“Taxes. . . rates will surely be raised at some point. Holding them steady for a year — for all but high incomers — costs $95 billion. For 10 years, the tab climbs to $2.46 trillion. Other tax options on the table include limiting itemized deductions and imposing a value-added tax.” Yes, debt hawks, raise my taxes. You don’t provide evidence, but you are much smarter than me, so go ahead, take my money. I don’t care.

The ignorant article continues, “All of the options are extremely painful, and lawmakers’ instincts will be to balk and refuse to budge.” And with darn good reason, because these options not only are painful, but are incredibly harmful and foolish.

America, wake up. These fools want to steal your money, your health, your defense and your lifestyle. Don’t let them do it. Demand proof they know what they’re talking about. Demand proof the federal deficit and debt are unsustainable. If someone wants to steal from you, vote them out.

Or you can just lie back, spread wide and say, “Take me.”

By the way, my $1000 offer still is unclaimed. I wonder why.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–The fallacy of taxing the rich

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Cynical populist politicians try to gather votes by playing Robin Hood. They think taxing the rich will make them popular with poor, and sadly, they are right. As the poor don’t realize, but readers of this blog have learned, TAXING THE RICH actually hurts everyone, especially the poor. Read the following article By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer, dated Aug 1, 2010
=====================================================================

“WASHINGTON – Wealthy Americans aren’t spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze. […] Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less. They account for about 14 percent of total spending.
[…]
“President Barack Obama wants to allow the top (tax)rates to increase next year for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes. […] Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy: When they buy more, the economy hums. When they cut back, it sputters. The rest of us mainly go along for the ride.

“Earlier this year, gains in stock portfolios had boosted household wealth. And the rich responded by spending freely. That raised hopes the recovery would strengthen. […] The affluent went back to tightening their belts in June after months of vigorous showing. Data from MasterCard Advisors’ SpendingPulse showed luxury spending fell in June for the first time since November. […] “It isn’t a good omen for the consumer recovery, which cannot exist without the luxury spender,” said Mike Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers.

“[…] And it helps explain why economists expect the rebound to lose momentum in the second half of the year. Especially if the rich don’t resume bigger spending. “They are the bellwether for the economy,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The fact that they turned more cautious is why the recovery is losing momentum. If they panic again, that would be the fodder for a double-dip recession.”

“That’s because whether they’re saving or spending, the wealthy deliver an outsize impact on the economy. What’s not clear is whether they will remain too nervous to spend freely again for many months. That’s what happened when the recession hit in December 2007 and then when the financial crisis ignited in September 2008.

“As their stock holdings and home values sank, the affluent lost wealth. Their jobs weren’t safe, either. Bankers, lawyers, accountants and mortgage brokers were among those getting pink-slipped. Those who did have jobs feared losing them. Neither group spent much. Instead, Americans’ savings rate spiked. And most of the increase came from the richest 5 percent, according to research by Moody’s Analytics. In the first quarter of this year, stocks rebounded, layoffs slowed and the rich were spending again. But now the rich are building up their savings and splurging less on discretionary items. That’s starting to show up in softer sales at upscale retailers, such as Neiman Marcus and Saks Inc.

“’The affluent — as their wealth goes down — they’ll become more and more conservative,’ predicts David Levy, chairman of the Jerome Levy Forecasting Center.”

So, if you feel raising taxes on the rich is harmless, think again.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity