Wells Hall Off Topic Board

No...but my wife is

And my comment was "most people"...not me.

Ron just took a little harmless mockery too seriously (like you do). I got a kick out of his saying that he pities me for having nothing better to do than mock other threads. The only people who can truly pity people for posting on message boards are those who don't post on message boards.

Still this

Lets not forget inflation is a tax as well. Every time the treasury prints money it devalues our currency thus we are being taxed. Though you may have the same amount of money in the bank it is worth less with every new bill they print and those new bills go to government spending it's sickening to think about really. When I'm done with college and have money saved I'm keeping my money in gold and silver.

Why do people call the most secure investment in the world "IOUs"?

Seriously do you believe that owning bonds from the strongest nation in the world which has the ablity to create money is just a Fed gov't IOU? The only way that those are defaulted is if the government decides not to pay them...

These IOU's are the most secure asset there can be...more secure than any physical asset because they cannot be destroyed or stolen...and more secure becuase they are the word or the strongest government in the world so they cannot be taken from them by force...

Govement IOU's are the words that idiots are using to scare the rest of you into giving up what is rightfully yours...

Be careful son....look hard at the history of gold as it is in a bubble right now that makes it seem much better than it has been for the last 40 years...

As I said you should look at the history of gold...if you had the cash right now and buy gold you will proably lose a bunch of value over the next few years...it is in a bubble at this monent and has been sliding downward for about 6 months...if you were silly enough to buy gold back in 1980 and sold it at the peak price last your you would have earned a wopping 1% over 30 years...kinda a bad rate of return...at that was primarily due to the rush to gold in 2008...before that you would have lost money big time...

If your concerned about inflation (not a big concern right now...it is very low by historic standards) then the stock market index funds have always been considered the safest inflation hedge...with much less risk than gold...

Well yes the S&P and Moodys have been downgrading various countries. Why they are doing this is uncertain. That they totally missed seeing that all the debt that the private sector was creating was bogus before 2008 burned them pretty badly in reputation and they are paid by people who are anti-government so perhaps that has something to do with it....it seems meaningless as the day the rating can out the US Bond interest rate fell...

Infation since 2008 has been lower than inflation before 2008...it would seem if what the Fed & Government are doing was going to create the situation you are concerned about this would not be the case.

Why do all the people who have been frightened by the fearmongering about Social Security not understand the problem? Social Security is PROJECTED to be unable to pay 100% or PROJECTED benefits sometime in the future. That PROJECTED sometime is 2036 which last time I checked is 24 years from now. If these PROJECTIONS are correct when the PROJECTED tax revenue will be able to pay 75% of the PROJECTED benefits.

The PROJECTIONS are the middile of the most likely PROJECTION based on the assumptions the ECONOMISTS at the Socila Security Adminstration are using. If should be noted there is a PROJECTION of the Trust Fund being used up somewhat sooner OR NEVER, depending how correct the assumptions the ECONOMISTS are making when they create these PROJECTIONS.

If any case there are a number of actions which would make these 24 year middle point PROJECTIONS show that there is no defict between resourses and outlays for Social Security. Changing the increase in benefits via a change in how the CPI is used to calculate the increase in benefits is one way, removing the cap on the amount of income which is taxed while keep the current benefits caps under to current cap is another...this is not a hard problem from a mechanics point of view...and it is simply fearmongering by people who want the population in a constant state of fear about the defict for their own political reasons that it is much of an issue at all.

Sorry for saying it, but you are delusional. If you are comparing official govt inflation numbers, please remember these do not include food and fuel (gee, wonder why politicians omit those?), 2 items that have increased substantially since 2008. Also, remember that since 2008 our economy along with most of the world's has been in the tank, think Supply/Demand curve. If we ever see a substantial rebound (we haven't), prices will move quickly.
I would direct you back to what Duke Silver posted about inflation being a tax. Sure the govt can pay Social Security by printing more money, but as that money becomes worth less, those SS checks buy less and less. So we can raise payments to match inflation, sort of a vicious cycle. Maybe the govt can just send out your SS payments in rolls of dollar bills, so you won't need to buy Charmin anymore.

Well...

It is all about how the government should be used to offset the economic activity in the private sector to smooth the economic expansions and contractions. In addition it is about the most effective mehods for the government to use to increase economic activity during contractions. Also it is about the safest way to rebalance the economy which is correcting for a real estate bubble.

The basic theory is that the government should run a defict budget when the economy is in a recession and a surplus budget when the economy is expanding so that the recessions will be less painful and the expansions will reduce the debt created during recessions.

In Addition, although economists argue about this, a number of studies by economists have shown that the econpomic effect of tax cuts tends to be lower than the economic effect of government spending. At least one study showed tax cuts create about a 1 to 1 ratio of increased economic activity while government spending create about a 1 to 1.8 ratio of increased economic activity.

Also right now what the Fed is doing is providing funds to the banks to unwind the Trillions of dollars the banks have in high risk mortages in order that the banking system does not fail causing a global depression which probably would last for decades...inside the Fed there are people arguing for less action (at least publicly, though it sould be just window dressing)...the Fed is trying to bring the economy though all this without sudden changes like we had in 2008 and thus is steering through a path where they do not believe they can allow the economy to grow too fast which might create inflation while they are still working to unwind the banks from the mess they are in...they expect it wil be close to 2020 before they have complely resolved the issues...

This means that growth is being held back and that growth is being held back is one of the reasons that tax reveunes are not as high as they would be and also that payments for food stamps & other support programs are higher than they would be since the unemployment is higher than it would be...thus the higher deficts now which are the best of a number of bad choices...

Reagan's deficts at the beginning of his administration were good as a Fed created recession was ongoing and the Fed was doing this to bring inflation under control. Reagan did both tax cuts and much higher spending. Reagan also raised taxes after the recession was over, though not IMO enough but did not reduce spending which should have been doneonce the recession was over...thus part of Reagan's deficts were good and part were bad. He used an ineffevtive way to increase economic activity (tax cuts) along with an effective way (government spending) and he didn't change course when hs should have.

GHW Bush tried to do the correct thing and was booed out of office for doing it.

Clinton did do the right thing, partly because he wanted to and partly because the Republicans helped him do so...the tax increase coming out of the recession was correct, the spending restraint was also correct...the tax cut for the capital gains at the end of his term created by the Republicians in horse trading where Clintion got the earned income credit (a good tax cut going to people who will spend it right away) was very very bad. that tax cuts were used instead of increased spending going into a recession was also bad and that was due tot he Republicians in Congress.

GW Bush was correct with defict spending in the recession though as noted the use of tax cuts instead of spending is the least effective way to improve the economy...however his additional tax cuts during the expansion were 100% wrong as was the additianl run away spending during this time...

Obama has done the best he can with the politics he faces...when he had some control in Congress he did some direct government spending (about 30% of the Stimulus), some tax cuts (about 35% of the stimulus) and some support for the tax revenue losses at the state level (about 35% of the stimulus). 100% on direct spending would have been better than the 35% on tax cuts but that was what he could get...Since that time he has relied on what he can get which has been tax cuts...due to the Republicians...he actually has done very very well given that the other side no longer appears to put the country ahead of their own lust for power...but anyway for all the reasons throughout this post the deficts at this time are better than the alternatives...

There was a study a couple of years ago that showed they do not understand who is actually paying the taxes in the United States. It also showed that most people in this country think that a income distribution similar to Sweden's was what we thought would be fair.

What the study leaves out is that the income distribution in Sweden & France is much differnt than in the United States...it those countries the top earners pay a higher precentage of thier income in taxes while in the United States the top 10% pay more of the tax burden because they are receiving most of the income but are paying a smaller precentage of that income in taxes...

The second statement also misses that the income distribution whold need to match Sweden & France for that to be true.

As for your last question I call in very poor wealth managem,ent on your part...there are investments that match or beat inflation...use them...

PS - I am considering the concept that the value of money should match the value the was used to create it...since many items lose value over time the value of the money used to create them should also lose value...

Here is a chart of US verses Swedish income at the top....

Also icome verses taxes in the US showing that the overall taxes are almost flat...