Slashdot Mirror

Says someone with the luxury of being able giving up a weeks pay. Or a job. Only 40% of Americans can handle a $1,000 emergency without doing into debt.

I can tell you my forecast: Someone will figure out that since there are no strings attached, they can offer these people loans at high interest, paid for by the $1k per month. So they'll be just as poor as before, but perhaps have a car for a while, and someone else gets richer.

The only people who'd get $1k extra are the people earning $0 today - not including those already on welfare programs as they'd be reduced/cut - which means they're either dependent on somebody else, living off savings, accumulating debt or hobos living under a bridge. That deadbeat son/daughter you haven't got the heart to kick out? Well now they got money to pay rent or to get a shabby room somewhere else. The stay-at-home mom and dads have a family economy. UBI for retirees would essentially be a public pension program, higher taxes but less need to set off funds for retirement. Students would hopefully exit their education with less debt and they'd probably be expected to pay in full many more places. And I don't think the first thing a hobo will do is buy a car.

If you have low income you'd be expected to pay a lot more taxes because your net income already start at UBI, everything you earn comes on top. Looking at current income tax brackets I'd guess a flat rate somewhere around 35%, like if you earn $100k, pay $35k taxes but get $12k UBI back the net is 23%, for $60k -> 15%, $200k -> 29%. So If you make $17k/year pay ~$6k in taxes, get $12k in UBI for a net $23k/year instead of paying ~$1800 in taxes. for a net $15200/year. That's a pretty good uplift, but then the UBI proponents want to cut all other programs like food stamps etc. so in exchange for those $7800 you're on your own. That program alone averages $1500/year per recipient, so poof it's down to $6300 extra. Medicaid could be another big one. Subsidized housing. There's lots of small programs that would be killed off.

Break-even would be around $35k, $35k * 0.35 = $12250 in, $12000 out. What's the break-even wage today, like how much do you need to earn to make a net contributon? I'm guessing it's not too far off. The only reason question is how many people would like to take some kind of sabbatical or take some kind of leap of faith and those $12k tip the scales. I sure as hell wouldn't try to live off that permanently, but if you have an attractive education/experience and know you can get back into the job market then the difference between a year off with $0 income and $12k is pretty big. Or just $12k/year more to coast into retirement.

...or you could get that job and in one year triple your gain compared to your silly coins.

30 years?? How many 350 pound 80 year old do you see??

https://www.bankrate.com/calcu...

Even with good blood pressure, a fat man your size is already pushing his luck at 70!

More than 50% of the price you pay for gasoline at the pump in the US goes to the government in the form of taxes

Gas tax is $0.56 per gallon in California, one of the highest tax states, while the total price is $2.80 a gallon, making it a 25% tax rate.

Oh, and finally, the program under which the Federal government provided loan guarantees to Solyndra actually made a profit for the US government.

Without the underlying numbers, "made a profit" is a meaningless statement. If you take a look at the Dept. of Energy's own rosy projections, you see that even they are not predicting the program will turn an actual (inflation-adjusted) profit.

For a loan portfolio around $30 billion, they're predicting $5 billion in interest payments over the entire term of the program, with average loan terms around 25 years. That $5 billion apparently does not account for defaults (over half a billion already over the first several years of the program, with around 20 years to go even assuming they haven't issued new loans since this 2014 report), but let's be super-generous and say they ultimately net the entire $5 billion. That's an average annual return of about 1.25% on the program's capital at risk -- not even enough to keep pace with inflation.

That's a disastrous return on invested capital that no investor in their right mind would consider (1) a success or (2) something worth even thinking about repeating.

I think I can safely predict that even you wouldn't voluntarily put your retirement savings into a fund that couldn't even keep up with inflation over a 25-year period.

I'm sorry, but it looks like you didn't understand the point I was making. Perhaps that was my fault, because I see now that I could have made it even simpler. Let me try again.

half of what you pay at a gas pump is tax

That is wrong, because at most you currently pay $1.83 per gallon at the pump, of which $0.58 is tax, and that is much less than half.

Sorry if my previous post confused you. I hope I made myself clear this time.

Probably half of what you pay at a gas pump is tax

People in North Carolina pay the highest in state and federal gas taxes, at 57.55 cents per gallon.
Current NC gas price: $1.83

So currently, the highest anyone is paying at the pump is 31% in tax.

If you are unwilling to tell the truth about obvious facts, I have to conclude everything you posted is a lie. Sorry you suck at debating so badly that you resort to easily disproven points to make your arguments.

Yup.

The end result is being a net worth of $300M. Who cares about a measly $200k for giving up that many hours of your life? 20 hours a week over how many years to increase your net worth by 0.06%? No thanks.

I think you're conflating marginal and effective tax rates here.

Thanks, but no. The top marginal rate in Iowa is exactly 8.98% for $69,256 and above. In my example you'll note that I only used 7% (32% - 25%), which is the effective Iowa income tax rate for an annual income of around $100k.

Your estimate at $71k was quite low, by the way. For that income you'd pay $4,532 or 6.4%, not 2.9%. You can find a list of the brackets here: State taxes: Iowa.

I'd check again, interest rates for home loans are a lot lower than they were 17 years ago.

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

> Yeah, let me know where you can get a checking account that gives you that much. Ignoramus.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/checking/high-yield-credit-unions.aspx

That's what I'm talking about. I used to have a Money Market checking account with NetBank that paid 5.5% interest.

Look at CD rates over the last 30 years.

Now see the prime rate during the same period.

1) What do you mean by "lots"? Is it growing as fast as the rate of population growth?

2) Silicon Valley income is over inflated compared to all US wages. Nice job picking the highest paid workers in the US. People in Flint make far less.

3) Americans get the best health care they can afford or go without. Incomes continue to drop while health care costs rise. Income: http://www.weeklystandard.com/... and health care costs:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/...

4) If you are making $10 an hour then 600 USD a month is unaffordable.

5) Price per square foot doesn't matter it is the monthly income that matters. Median US income is about 57K USD see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or 3800 assuming a 20% tax bracket (which may be low). This works out to about 40% of take home which is above the 1/3 of income reccomended for housing.
http://www.investopedia.com/mo... and see http://www.bankrate.com/calcul...
The number for a 30000 home I came up with is 65K USD WITHOUT the cost of food, clothing, transportation, education and medical care.

6) You concede the cost of education to me.

7) Inflation is a zero sum game. If costs of goods goes up and incomes lag, workers lose.

8) OK. WHat is your definition of inflation? If prices go up and income does not keep pace we have inflation. Note the CPI does not include many items of importance such as food and transportation.

All I can say is that what I see and is conveyed to me by others can be explained by statistics.

The price of gadgets doesn't matter real people need real goods.

Here's just a couple of links for you:

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...
http://www.investopedia.com/fi...

Some of the second set actually being funny.

Yet various surveys and reports consistently show that more than half of Americans have less then $1000 saved to cover unexpected expenses, let alone leave their job for several months. You are fortunate. Most are not.

Yet various surveys and reports(PDF) consistently show that more than half of Americans have less than $1000 saved to cover unexpected expenses, let alone quitting their job for a few months. You are fortunate. Most are not.

[typos corrected]

Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?

PopeRatzo wrote:

If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

1968 is the year Donald Trump graduated from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

A million dollars invested in 1968 into an index fund following the S&P would be worth about $74 million in 2013. Yes, MILLLIONS, not BILLIONS.. Go to the "Historical returns investing calculator" by Chris Kahn at Bankrate :

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/historical-returns-investing-calculator.aspx

and enter the figures, with a starting value of $1 million in 1968 and an ending date of 2013 (It only goes to 2013, not 2016, but even so the result in 2016 would be nowhere near the billions) The result is $74,167,654.01. Or, if you are suspicious that you didn't enter the right number of zeroes, enter $1 in 1968, and you get back $74.17 in 2013. The Bankrate calculator notes: "Calculator assumes dividends are invested back into your portfolio. Market value excludes inflation, taxes and/or investment costs. Calculator based on the S&P Composite Stock Price Index compiled by Yale economist Robert Shiller. " (Note that Bankrate itself is a public company on the New York Stock Exchange; read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate)

PopeRatzo wrote: Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

So that logic proves that Trump actually IS a great business man because he took that $1 million loan and turned it into at least $4 billion (low estimate) to $10 billion (his claim). If he had literally followed the advice posted above, he would have only made at most $90 million by 2016 without extracting any money from the fund. Living expenses (food, clothing, hair cuts ha ha, university tuition for the kids), capital gains taxes, income tax, property taxes all would have eaten into the sitting pile of money like piranhas on Michael Jackson's decaying flesh.

And the total amount of money generated from the $1 million investment actually has to be more than $4-10 billion because that is just what Trump gets to keep. Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue his businesses generate; the rest of the money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

His businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

From "How Donald Trump helped save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House,

Really shitty business man? With a success rate over 99%?

PopeRatzo wrote:

If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

1968 is the year Donald Trump graduated from Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

A million dollars invested in 1968 into an index fund following the S&P would be worth about $74 million in 2013. Yes, MILLLIONS, not BILLIONS.. Go to the "Historical returns investing calculator" by Chris Kahn at Bankrate :

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/investing/historical-returns-investing-calculator.aspx

and enter the figures, with a starting value of $1 million in 1968 and an ending date of 2013 (It only goes to 2013, not 2016, but even so the result in 2016 would be nowhere near the billions) The result is $74,167,654.01. Or, if you are suspicious that you didn't enter the right number of zeroes, enter $1 in 1968, and you get back $74.17 in 2013. The Bankrate calculator notes: "Calculator assumes dividends are invested back into your portfolio. Market value excludes inflation, taxes and/or investment costs. Calculator based on the S&P Composite Stock Price Index compiled by Yale economist Robert Shiller. " (Note that Bankrate itself is a public company on the New York Stock Exchange; read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankrate)

PopeRatzo wrote: Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.

So that logic proves that Trump actually IS a great business man because he took that $1 million loan and turned it into at least $4 billion (low estimate) to $10 billion (his claim). If he had literally followed the advice posted above, he would have only made at most $90 million by 2016 without extracting any money from the fund. Living expenses (food, clothing, hair cuts ha ha, university tuition for the kids), capital gains taxes, income tax, property taxes all would have eaten into the sitting pile of money like piranhas on Michael Jackson's decaying flesh.

And the total amount of money generated from the $1 million investment actually has to be more than $4-10 billion because that is just what Trump gets to keep. Trump keeps only a fraction of the entire revenue; other money goes to local, state, and federal government taxes, AND all the wages he's paid to other people over the years.

His businesses have directly employed tens of thousands of people, from "blue collar" to "white collar": concept artists, architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, electrical engineers, IT folks, computer programmers, interior designers, fashion (apparel) designers, electricians, plumbers, stone masons, sculptors, retail marketers, accountants, lawyers, furniture makers, advertisers, photographers, models, and on and on. This kind of "wealth distribution" isn't just giving people a handout, but allows them to follow their own dream careers. And many of his buildings have transformed the neighborhoods in which they were built, increasing the economic activity and further "distributing wealth".

From "How Donald Trump held save New York City", by Steve Cuozzo, Feburary 7, 2016 in the New York Post:

Long before Donald Trump stamped his name in gold on buildings around the world, posted snarky midnight tweets and joined the race of the White House, he was New York's most important and bravest real-estate

There's more than one way to get money into an IRA. You can do a 401k rollover for instance. Contribution limits for 401ks are about 18000 for the employee, but 53000 for the employer. The limit is also per employer, not total... so if you own 10 companies and draw a salary from all 10 companies, I guess you can put away half a million per year in 401ks, then roll them over to IRAs.

Another trick is to use a self-directed IRA that lets you hold more investments than just publicly traded stocks and bonds. A self-directed IRA can buy and sell all kinds of stuff like real estate and art. How hard is it for a self-directed IRA to buy some art, then magically sell it the next day for 50x profit to the owner, the owner's company, a friend, etc? I don't know.

According to http://www.bankrate.com/financ... there are 314 taxpayers with IRA balances over $25 million, so definitely some tricks are happening.

My car was built properly the first time, it did not need continuous replacement of parts because the original ones had design/manufacturing defects.

Oh look...
http://www.popularmechanics.co...
http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

Police work is not particularly dangerous. It's not even in the top ten, coming in well below professions such as fisherman (>8x as dangerous), logger (6x), garbage collector (2x), roofer (>2x), and airline pilot (>4x); none of whom are so prone to going on 'roid-raging power trips and murdering people as the police are.

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
http://www.bankrate.com/financ...
http://www.businessinsider.com...

ARMs blew up the economy? Rates changed less than 1% from 2005 to the peak since then - and that's for 1 year ARMs (10 year ARMs have been much more stable).

If you had an ARM before the crash in 2008 and you were able to pay your mortgage before - you could continue to pay your mortgage afterwards. What blew up the CDS market was NINJA loans and 100%+ loan-to-value mortgages and 2nd and 3rd mortgages at 125% to 150% LTV rates - not ARMs.

As far as FICA, you don't pay it on $100K; you pay it on your adjusted mortgage. Assuming $100,000 annually, a mortgage interest amount of $1200 per month, a $1000 a monthly 401K deposit, and four exemptions, your AGI would be around $45,000 - meaning you'll pay an average of $280 per month for SS and FICA (7.62% of your AGI).

Credit checks are fine.

But an income check is a bit more suspicious. Particularly when they set the income level (33.3% on rent) above the level of back-end ratio that lets you get a mortgage. It's technically below the mortgage payment level (that maxes out at 28%, not 36%), but 28% of your income plus property tax/repairs/etc. is usually more then 33.3%.

And it's hard for me to think of a good business reason to require a renter with an $1,100 monthly payment have more income then a homeowner with an $1,100 payment.

One big source of demand for stocks in recent years has come from companies buying back their own shares. These buybacks have not just provided extra demand — they have decreased the total supply of shares available. So the buybacks have shifted the supply-demand balance and helped drive stock prices higher.

All these buybacks, which have ranged between $75 billion and $159 billion a quarter for the past four years, have provided a steady flow of demand for shares. As the chart below shows, the buybacks have not been offset by new share issuance, so they have modestly reduced the total supply of shares available for S&P 500 companies. The number of shares outstanding is now lower than it was back in 2005, almost 10 years ago.

This is a direct effect of low interest rates. Companies are taking out loans for the buybacks

Another big source of cash for buybacks, however, has been debt. As the chart below shows, companies have been borrowing like mad in recent years. And they have been using lots of the cash they borrow to buy back their stock.

Why are they doing this? Because high stock prices disproportionally favor the top level executives. The get stock at a discount (stock options) and can game the tax code for lower taxes as well. It's a legal way to loot their companies.

Why are rates so low? Because the previous generation of corporate criminals wrecked the world economy with their greed. Low interest is the way that governments are trying to regrow their economies.

Now governments all over are giving free money to the same group of people (and even the same individuals) who caused the damage in the first place with these near zero interest rates. (For example, the US Federal fund rate for the big lenders is 0.25%.)

Stock buybacks don't grow the economy. There is a direct relationship between the sky high stock market and the long delayed general recovery outside the stock market.

This effectively redistributes wealth upward. The rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.

It's also another bubble. Whenever rates do go up there will be another crash. And given recent history, it will end up turning into another way of stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

We need to subsidize an improved form of transport so that it can compete with the heavily-subsidized ones today (you're not going to tell me roads are privatized)

When you look at all the taxes and user fees, it turns out that users of roads and highways pay about as much overall as their construction and maintenance costs.

Once place where I was near Zurich, admittedly an expensive area, wanted $2000/year for a commuter rail pass. I calculated that it was actually a very large savings over automobile ownership or even automobile use.

Those passes (I used to have one) are a luxury item that people buy in addition to cars, not instead of them. They simply are not a substitute for cars.

As I was saying, the idea of a car-less European society is a fiction. The US is actually more urbanized and has a lower car ownership rate than much of Europe. I gave you the links, look it up.

We've really had a century-long economic distortion as far as automobiles are concerned, we are now starting to pay the price as energy costs increase and we see the ecological impact, etc. Let's help people get away from that.

Sorry, but that's pure economic fantasy. Average annual car ownership costs in the US (repairs+insurance+gasoline) are around $2500, and for that you get transportation that gets you from anywhere to anywhere at any time, including carrying large amounts of luggage. That's a really good deal and public transit just can't beat it.

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

And if you really want to help poor people through subsidizing transportation, start with the most effective and flexible public transportation infrastructure, the bus. Doubling or tripling the bus fleet in low income neighborhoods would do much more for people than HSR from SF to LA and cost much less.

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17. Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financ... Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

That means a single filer who made $343,927 or more in 2009 is in the top 1 percentile. A married couple with two kids and combined earnings of $343,927 or more also was among the top earners in the country. The 2009 figures are the latest the IRS has tallied. Filing of returns for tax year 2010 didn't officially close until Oct. 17. Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financ... Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

http://www.bankrate.com/financ...

The cost of living in San Francisco is 68% more than Kansas City (source: http://www.bankrate.com/calcul...). According to Brooking's Institute report the average salary for a tech job is 96% more (source: http://www.brookings.edu/resea...). So it all depends where you fall in that spectrum. I wouldn't be surprised if some one-percenters are skewing the San Francisco average. Last time I compared salaries, it was less than a 50% increase for me to work at Apple, but I didn't compare any other companies.

Your guess for the cost to produce a regular credit/debit card is exactly right, but chip cards apparently cost a lot more. Bank of America sent me a new "chip-and-signature" card (yuck, why not chip-and-pin, so frustrating) after the Home Depot breach. According to this article:

"The cost to produce and distribute a card to a customer is under $2. The cost to make and distribute a chip card to a customer is between $15 and $20," says Coleman.

The last link on TFS says that just community banks and credit unions are already on the hook for $160 million. That's not even counting the banking giants. We're talking LOTS of money lost and wasted by a lot of people because of Target, Home Depot, et al being lax with their security.

It exists. It's called a credit card, underwritten by a real bank, which will adhere to actual banking laws instead of "whatever we decide we want to do", and actually have some stake in fraud prevention.

I am sure banks are all law abiding entities who respect the letter and spirit of the law and do not try to subvert existing rules to pass on costs to their customers.

I'll give you that banks want to prevent fraud though.

Try all you want, the term was never used the way you're insisting it was.

Gee, if only there was some way of proving otherwise. Like maybe I can look at old news articles from years ago?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... :

About three years ago, Brandy Johnson cut the cord. "We had a landline and had some trouble with it," she said. After that, she and her husband decided to make the jump to wireless. [..] As pay phones and landlines disappear, we might be moving toward a wireless future. [..] While some people still use their landlines for their Internet access, "dial-up is antiquated," one of his co-workers said in the background.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/ne... :

Ready to cut the cord? While it's clear that snipping your landline could save you some serious cash, it's not for everyone. [..] Hanging on to your solo landline solely for the Internet connection? Be sure to weigh the costs of other Internet options, such as cable modems.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.... :

The decision by federal regulators to let consumers move their home number to a mobile phone represented a defeat for carriers concerned about losing more lines. [..] "After today it's easier than ever to cut the cord," FCC Chairman Michael Powell said in a statement. [..] Verizon also said canceling a landline may also disable alarm reporting services, TiVo, satellite TV, cable pay-per-view and Internet access that depends on a phone line, including dial-up and DSL access.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2... :

In fact, an estimated 2 to 3 million consumers are expected to drop their landlines over the next 18 to 24 months [..] People who rely mostly on cell phones cite cost and convenience as the main motivation for cutting the cord. [..] "If I was going online with a dial-up, then I would have a landline, but since they have the cable connection and the wireless connections, that negates the reason for having a landline," she added. Others are abandoning once fancy features on their landlines and maintaining the line's bare bones service.

Those are clear demarcations between people "cutting the cord" and keeping a landline around for Internet. How about that, a term that makes sense?

By "most Americans", I take it you refer to the dirt poor, who have nothing to pay, and to the filthy rich, who simply do not pay.

Working stiffs pay 25 to 33%. Note the word "working". People who WANT TO WORK, but can't find anything better than a minimum wage job only pay 15% - like Romney. People who fall into the 35% bracket are no longer "working".

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx

Please don't sing Romney's praises to me, for paying 15% taxes. I pay considerably more than that. Worse, like any other politician, he makes his money at our expense, THEN cheats on those taxes!

I'm not completely sure, but I think the SEC is talking about situations where a company avoids the traditional IPO process and instead "crowdfunds" the sale of securities in their company (either debt or equity). Kickstarter is generally different, because the return on "investment" is in the form of a set non-monetary reward that is more similar to a purchase than an investment.

What is needed, though, is some clarity in the rulemaking process to ensure that Kickstarter and other similar sites can feel comfortable that they are not at risk of being caught up in this net.

No, you can expect no death benefits, insurance payouts, pension or anything else to the family you leave behind.

Wrong!!! Stop believing in Hollywood fairy tails. Life Insurance must pay out even in cases of suicide so long as the policy is more then 1 or 2 years old depending on state. I think though if the insurance company can prove that you took out the policy with the intention of killing yourself they could void it even several years out. But who is desperate enough to kill themselves for money but still has enough of it to make 1 to 2 years of payments on life insurance. On the pension and everything else am pretty sure your family would still be able to collect but am not an estate lawyer.

Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day.

Sorry to reply to myself, forgot to include the referance:

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx

capital gains does NOT at all hinder the economy

Good to know. Perhaps we should eliminate the capital gains exemption for real estate sales of primary residences. I wonder if a $10,000 tax liability on $50k of profit would "hinder" John Q. Low Information voter when he sells his house.

He might be a little less willing to indulge "progressive" hate mongering about the "rich," at least. Anyhow, you let me know when we elect someone ready to repeal that little tax break because it doesn't "hinder" the economy.

I'll be right here, not holding my breath.

No one will actually cut spending. most of what the government spends money on isn't pork projects. It isn't entitlements. Sure the government might spend $50 billion on pork projects but out of trillions that is saying they went out to eat a lot.

The Social security is a ponzi scheme where they stole money out of for decades and now the bill is due so the politicians are still losing money that way.

The problem is the government cut taxes several times but they can't cut spending.

I agree with you on the need to cut spending, and not a trivial amount like the $50billion that you mention. Percentage-wise, cutting $50billion from the federal budget is like a household making $50,000 figuring out how to spend $700 less next year.

So the wealthy got tax breaks but anyone earning less than $150,000 a year gets screwed.

Mit Rommeny pays less in taxes than someone earning $150,000 a year. the top 5% control something stupid like 90% of the income yet only pay taxes on 20% of that total. yet they bitch and moan they pay too much. but they only pay taxes on 20% of their income whereas if you are earning less than $250,000 then you are paying taxes on 100% of your income.

that is the problem. the trick is everyone in congress is in that group.

Back when Mitt Romney was running for President, his 2011 tax forms showed an effective tax rate of 14.6%. I just ran a tax estimator here: http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/tax-planning/1040-form-tax-calculator.aspx for a gross income of $150,000, Married filing jointly, with 2 dependents. Taking the standard deduction with no other credits, it estimated a tax of $22,408, or 14.94%.

Granted, 14.94% is larger than 14.6%, but not outrageously so. Our mythical family of 4 would also do much better if they could claim a 10% charitable donation like the Romneys, or the mortgage and/or student loan interest of a typical family.

That being said, I'm right there with you about your feelings of the social security ponzi and our Congress that's so lousy it has an approval rating teetering around 10%.

Does simply not wanting to pay more for something mean there is a shortage?

Yes, that is the definition of a shortage. When demand/supply is high enough that developers can demand salaries that many segments of the market cannot afford, then there is a shortage.

Where are the long lines of companies waiting at the developer stations?

Everywhere. Maybe you have not been paying attention.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/223509/demand_for_workers_outstrips_supply_first_since_2008.html
http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=pr645&sd=7/13/2011&ed=12/31/2011&siteid=cbpr&sc_cmp1=cb_pr645_
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/jobs-careers/biggest-worker-shortages.aspx#slide=4
https://www.nixonwilliams.com/blog/post/07/2013/Temporary-IT-worker-demand-rises-to-two-year-high

Claiming that renters (there are renters outside the city, BTW) are paying property tax is also as dumb as claiming that when I take out a loan or use a credit card,

You got this one wrong. You have to examine the incidence of taxation. The property owner has to pay taxes but he pays this by passing the cost on to the people renting the property. The actual tax incidence is on the renters, not the landlord. The amount of the tax is irrelevant in this case in determining who is the one ultimately burdened with the tax even if the amount of the tax is just one penny.

For the same reason this is why gasoline taxes are fundamentally a regressive tax (hurts the poor more than the rich). The oil companies do not absorb the cost, they merely pass it along to their customers, more of whom are poor than are wealthy.

There is a cap on the SS tax because there's a cap on benefits.

That would be a more credible argument if they amount paid in equaled the amount paid out in benefits to each beneficiary. Most beneficiaries receive more in payments than they pay to social security. And let's be frank, there is a cap on SS tax because the wealthy are a powerful lobby and have undue influence when it comes to financial legislation. Your argument is just some sugar to help get rid of the icky taste of reality.

If that were really true, the US probably wouldn't be one of the most litigious societies in the world, including many ridiculous lawsuits.

There are other than federal student loans:
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=76403ee4-9604-480e-ad05-9f2cf2292cce
This story is about a guy who has exactly that problem.

Also, if you default (and did not die), I had read that your family can be held responsible for your federal student loans even if they did not co-sign, which I have not been able to find a link to confirm. This link seems to say I am wrong about the co-signing. It is co-signing that makes you liable. Mea culpa.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/debt/co-signing-student-loan-makes-you-liable.aspx

"a vast majority of people get considerably more out of Social Security and Medicare then they put in."

Citations needed.

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/

"No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in. But those on the high end of the wage scale pay proportionally more in taxes than the average wage earner, not surprisingly."

Also see page 1 of http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf

Do investors want to select for delusional entrepreneurs without a sense of the realities of the world?

The lottery mentality runs very deep in American culture. This is not just my opinion: More than half of those aged 18 to 29 (54 percent), believe they will get rich. And yet, only 2% of the population identifies themselves as actually rich. That is a BIG disconnect. Put another way, there's a sucker born every minute.

Well... see, the thing is, gasoline isn't really $4.17 / gallon. The gas is much less, and the rest of that price is taxes that go for road maintenance.

Well, the gas tax is about 10% of each gallon, which is hardly "vast."

I agree something would have to be done if electric cars get very popular though.

I would argue that a billionaire wanting to sink money into this when the technology isn't there yet, should be taxed higher so that the money can be directed towards more urgent things

So you want to tax a man higher for actually putting his money where his mouth is and pushing humanity forward? Versus the other members of the 1% that are just sitting on their money in FDIC insured accounts? At least he's putting skin in the game. I argue conversely that those who sit and do nothing should be taxed at a higher rate. Force them to put their money into ideas and plans, rather then cower under the skirt of the government they hate so much.

.

The so-called time-value of money hasn't existed in practical terms for 10 years.

hard inquiries affect your score by 1 to 5 points. FICO also groups inquires -- so if you shop for a mortgage during a period of a month or so, all of those will be grouped together (and will affect your score the same as 1 inquiry)

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/how-credit-inquiries-affect-credit-score.aspx

So let me get this straight... If a workstation is compromised, it's cleaned, but there's no need to bother reimaging. If a server is compromised, and data is lost/damaged, it doesn't matter because it was already the admin's job to fix it, so it doesn't cost anything? And the lost productivity due to countless meetings to review doesn't cost anything? And the projects that get delayed don't cost anything, regardless of being under contracts? And the resulting investigation, likely involving travel to foreign countries, doesn't cost anything?

That is what I call nonsense.

But hey... I guess you know your stuff. After all, banks are very secure.

Some place that provides, well, data, like say Bankrate:

http://www.bankrate.com/rates/safe-sound/memorandums-memos.aspx?fedid=480228

They seem to feel B of A is sound these days. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not panicking because someone else is saying "The world is ending!"