State of the Union.

[mspart]

1 minute ago, Mike Parrish said:

As I said, it's an older document that covered more options.
I included a newer document that has newer numbers but not all the options included in the older document.

"Raising the current 80,400 limit to 100,000" fixes 26% of the shortfall back when this document was compiled.

Extrapolation is a thing.

Extrapolation must be used in many cases.   But extrapolation doesn't prove your point.  Extrapolation, in this case,  assumes things will remain as they are today with only one change.  But it doesn't take into account that as one thing changes, so may many others. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, mspart said:

Extrapolation must be used in many cases.   But extrapolation doesn't prove your point.  Extrapolation, in this case,  assumes things will remain as they are today with only one change.  But it doesn't take into account that as one thing changes, so may many others. 

mspart

Maybe you could show how this particular example, eliminating the income cap on SS/MC taxes, isn't a linear relationship?

[mspart]

3 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Moving the goalposts a little there?

If you actually want to discuss the issues civilly, stop including the snide commentary.

If you would discuss this in any manner, civilly or not, that would be a nice change.   I'm only trying to point out that you say things and do not back them up.   And when finally pushed to do so, your stuff doesn't back up anything you have said.   That really is not so much snide as what I am observing here.   If you feel it is snide, that is on you.  

Moving the goalposts?   Not really.   I'll restate the question I have repeated over and over and over and over that you have not actually responded to:   Which R, other than Rick Scott, has proposed altering SS or MC in 2023?   That is a really simple question with a really simple answer.   The answer is either none, or these folks and cite the legislation they have proposed.  Very simple.  

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

Timely

 

[mspart]

23 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Maybe you could show how this particular example, eliminating the income cap on SS/MC taxes, isn't a linear relationship?

I think I did and maybe you didn't catch it.   The extrapolation depends on everything staying the same.   You don't extrapolate on changing conditions throughout the extrapolation.  If things change as i suggested that salaries decrease but remuneration is given in other ways to maintain the overall earnings package, then that would be a change the extrapolation couldn't account for.   It would be nice if it were linear.    If life were linear, things would be so much simpler.  

mspart

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Timely

 

Are you saying that Mike Pence is in Congress and has floated this as a bill?   Oh, I thought not.   Nice try.  It is timely but not on topic. 

mspart

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1 minute ago, mspart said:

I think I did and maybe you didn't catch it.   The extrapolation depends on everything staying the same.   You don't extrapolate on changing conditions throughout the extrapolation.  If things change as i suggested that salaries decrease but remuneration is given in other ways to maintain the overall earnings package, then that would be a change the extrapolation couldn't account for.   It would be nice if it were linear.    If life were linear, things would be so much simpler.  

mspart

Do you honestly think a significant portion of the employers will change their payroll policies and programs to facilitate for SS/MC tax avoidance on the part of their employees?

I contend the relationship between income cap removal/limit and additional revenue collection is linear or near enough so to not matter.

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, mspart said:

Are you saying that Mike Pence is in Congress and has floated this as a bill?   Oh, I thought not.   Nice try.  It is timely but not on topic. 

mspart

mspart

The pigeonholing of which people within the GOP's bent to destroy Social Security said what at what time is tedious.

If you want to have a conversation, lets have a conversation.

If you want to strut around splitting hairs, I'll just ignore you.

[mspart]

30 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Do you honestly think a significant portion of the employers will change their payroll policies and programs to facilitate for SS/MC tax avoidance on the part of their employees?

I contend the relationship between income cap removal/limit and additional revenue collection is linear or near enough so to not matter.

I think it could happen.   I think other things could happen as well.   These high earners are in the upper realms of their companies if not the owners.  There are lots of options to show low W2 earnings and still make a lot under the table.   Who makes 400k?  Certainly not me.   Those are reserved for the top guys and they can do things us schlubbs can't. 

I just was giving one idea of how they might skirt the rules.   I'm sure, when properly motivated, CPAs will figure out how to do whatever it takes to shield income from taxation.   They already do. 

mspart

[mspart]

30 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

The pigeonholing of which people within the GOP's bent to destroy Social Security said what at what time is tedious.

If you want to have a conversation, lets have a conversation.

If you want to strut around splitting hairs, I'll just ignore you.

First, if you wanted to ignore, you would have long ago.   This question of mine, that you still have not answered, has been going on for pages in this thread.    I asked a very simple question and I will ask it again:

Which R in Congress, other than Rick Scott, has proposed altering SS or MC in 2023?   That is a really simple question with a really simple answer.   The answer is either:

a) none or

b) name the folks and cite the legislation they have proposed. 

Very simple.

There doesn't need to be a lot of conversation on this.   Just answer the question.   If you don't want to support your claim, then by all means begin the ignoring.   But if you want to support your claim, which you have not yet done and that is really ludicrous in my opinion, support it with facts and data.  It is not hard to do, but liberals generally will not put up when asked, they just keep deflecting.   That is what is going on here. 

I have no personal animosity towards you Mike.   I love your posts on the international board.   You provide good insight there.  But on this board, you say things and don't back them up when I've asked.   That's what I find curious.   Opinions are good, but rather than deflecting you could just say you don't have anything concrete to back up your opinion.   Opinions are not necessarily grounded in facts and data.   But when you present them as facts, then when called upon, it is not unreasonable to provide the data to support those 'facts'. 

mspart

[BerniePragle]

2 hours ago, Nailbender said:

Sorry, I don't have any patents to share and wouldn't if I did.

Since you seem confused, my post was referencing this gem.

"A nickle's worth of free advice from an old man before I leave you... When you play any sport or any game, you will never be much better than, maybe, a little better than the people you play with. The same is true of being intelligent. If you want to be smart, hang around and converse with smart people. I know, what a concept. In my opinion, this board is a very good place to start/continue."

     Been stuck in my craw. Hanging out where you feel comfortable doesn't make you any smarter. It's mentally lazy. So is the attitude in your post. I've been reading here for a long time. There's as much genius or ignorance as anywhere but other parts of the forum have some great wrestling talk. 

     Nothing personal about it, for me at least. You think you're smart, maybe you are. I've seen nothing in your discourse to prove either way. However thinking you're smarter than everyone, does seem to be a theme with you and others here. Once again illustrated by... 

     The fact that you took the time to dig that out, block out your personal info and post it while flipping the bird. As if that proves you have it all figured out. 

     Please do tell me more about how smart you are, if you're so inclined though. I'm sure your old buddies will eat it up and it gives me quite a chuckle.

You honestly think I spent more time picking that patent off the mantle, laying it on the bed, taking a sheet of paper out of the copier and making 2 cuts and a notch on it, than you did looking up my "gem"?  Before I drew on a computer, I spent many hours drawing, etc with a pencil and paper.  You're seriously underestimating the physical cut and paste skills of a 70 year old engineer.  That was simply to show that not all of us (perceived) Leftists are touchy/feely Psych majors.  Before you pounce on it, Yes, that patent is on the mantle in the bedroom next to one of my wife's and one we have together.  She's actually the brains in the family.  The rest are in a box somewhere, that would take some digging.  For $50 each, I'll dig them out, photograph them, and hold up any finger you want.  First one was free.

Speaking of my "gem", I'm guessing you thought I was referring only to myself or my "Leftist" buddies when I said "this board is a very good place to start/continue" (conversing with smart people).  I've met, agreed with, disagreed with, argued with, laughed at, shook my head at, very smart people of all political persuasions on here.  And many whose political persuasion I have no clue about.  That's simply because their posts are not the constant  litany of "They're after us", "Did you see what they're trying to do to us now", etc that come from a few people on here.   Do yourself a favor and check how many of the "Non Wrestling Topics" fit the agenda (I know you guys love that word) of which end of the political spectrum.  Feel free to share the count with me.
With my "gem", I was only saying don't spend your time conversing with people whose greatest accomplishment in life is remembering the channel number for Fox News.

I don't know if you remember the switch to the new forum.  Before, when the old one was going away and after the switch, I said many times how I thought there were many smart people on here.  I remember using the phrase "in comparison to other social media, FB, etc".  Amazingly, I made no reference to political position.

"However thinking you're smarter than everyone, does seem to be a theme with you and others here".   The Conservatives go to move.  Kinda like ADS and the firemans carry.  Wow, I just realized, there may be something we agree on after all.

Edited February 17, 2023 by BerniePragle

[Nailbender]

16 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

You honestly think I spent more time picking that patent off the mantle, laying it on the bed, taking a sheet of paper out of the copier and making 2 cuts and a notch on it, than you did looking up my "gem"?  Before I drew on a computer, I spent many hours drawing, etc with a pencil and paper.  You're seriously underestimating the physical cut and paste skills of a 70 year old engineer.  That was simply to show that not all of us (perceived) Leftists are touchy/feely Psych majors.  Before you pounce on it, Yes, that patent is on the mantle in the bedroom next to one of my wife's and one we have together.  She's actually the brains in the family.  The rest are in a box somewhere, that would take some digging.  For $50 each, I'll dig them out, photograph them, and hold up any finger you want.  First one was free.

Speaking of my "gem", I'm guessing you thought I was referring only to myself or my "Leftist" buddies when I said "this board is a very good place to start/continue" (conversing with smart people).  I've met, agreed with, disagreed with, argued with, laughed at, shook my head at, very smart people of all political persuasions on here.  And many whose political persuasion I have no clue about.  That's simply because their posts are not the constant  litany of "They're after us", "Did you see what they're trying to do to us now", etc that come from a few people on here.   Do yourself a favor and check how many of the "Non Wrestling Topics" fit the agenda (I know you guys love that word) of which end of the political spectrum.  Feel free to share the count with me.
With my "gem", I was only saying don't spend your time conversing with people whose greatest accomplishment in life is remembering the channel number for Fox News.

I don't know if you remember the switch to the new forum.  Before, when the old one was going away and after the switch, I said many times how I thought there were many smart people on here.  I remember using the phrase "in comparison to other social media, FB, etc".  Amazingly, I made no reference to political position.

"However thinking you're smarter than everyone, does seem to be a theme with you and others here".   The Conservatives go to move.  Kinda like ADS and the firemans carry.  Wow, I just realized, there may be something we agree on after all.

I understood you perfectly the first time. Just saying it again with more words doesn't make my point less.

If you're smart it will be evident. If you're not...I can learn from anyone.
 

[Mike Parrish]

Pence says SS/MC need to be cut.

 

[Mike Parrish]

https://www.rawstory.com/economist-paul-krugman-tears-down-right-wing-arguments-that-social-security-and-medicare-are-doomed/

 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.rawstory.com/economist-paul-krugman-tears-down-right-wing-arguments-that-social-security-and-medicare-are-doomed/

 

Krugman has such a strong history of being correct.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/paul-krugman-always-wrong-never-173530058.html

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

Krugman has such a strong history of being correct.

https://www.yahoo.com/video/paul-krugman-always-wrong-never-173530058.html

mspart

In 2008, Krugman was the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

The author of your article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Harsanyi

 

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Mike Parrish

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

https://www.rawstory.com/economist-paul-krugman-tears-down-right-wing-arguments-that-social-security-and-medicare-are-doomed/

 

There is a lot of "supposing" on Krugman's part.   He does not even talk about the boomer situation, the lessening of the labor pool or anything regarding hard facts.   He does suggest that we socialize medicine so that:

It's not at all hard to imagine that improving the incentives to focus on medically effective care could limit cost growth to well below what the CBO is projecting, even now.

The extent of his analysis is to imagine.  To imagine that we focus on medically effective care, trigger words meaning rationing of medical care.   We need to get rid of as many boomers as we can so that we are not spending so much.   There, I just decoded Krugman for you.  

Assuming nothing changes, SS will be spending more than it brings in in just a few years.   Taxes will necessarily have to rise because now the general budget will be paying for SS benefits.  Or general budget spending will have to decrease.   Or, age of benefit will have to rise.   Those are the choices.   Krugman's thesis that we don't have to do anything is wishful thinking.   He is wrong and common sense tells anyone with thought process that this is true. 

If we do nothing, SS and Medicare spending will come out of the general budget.   If that happens, we either just call it debt, or we raise taxes to pay for it.   Or to keep SS solvent, SS taxes will have to rise either by rate increase or by salary increase or raise the age of retirement.   Isn't it 72 right now?   Seems high really.   These are the ways to keep SS alive. 

Doing nothing just raises the debt.   Krugman is probably the last person you want to go to for economic predictions.  His win-loss record is pretty low. 

mspart

[mspart]

17 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

In 2008, Krugman was the winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.

I'm aware of this which is why it is so surprising that his politics trumps his economics.  He has left economic analysis at the alter of left wing politics.   Astounding really.   He never admits he is wrong.   If you can find even a few things that he got right, that would be something. 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/556041-why-new-york-times-economist-paul-krugman-is-partly-right-but-mostly-wrong

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

2 minutes ago, mspart said:

I'm aware of this which is why it is so surprising that his politics trumps his economics.  He has left economic analysis at the alter of left wing politics.   Astounding really.   He never admits he is wrong.   If you can find even a few things that he got right, that would be something. 

https://seekingalpha.com/article/556041-why-new-york-times-economist-paul-krugman-is-partly-right-but-mostly-wrong

mspart

Literally the first hit on google is him admitting a mistake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/opinion/paul-krugman-inflation.html

 

Something where he was right.

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4

 

You don't seem to see nuance very well.
Are you a Sith?

Edited February 24, 2023 by Mike Parrish