KaskadskyjKozak

I've been shot twice, jumped out of countless airplanes, been crushed under inhumane pack loads and generally abused and am, as an active duty military member, already in excess of 30% disability (if I were to get out today). If I had no retirement/ disability to make up for my service induced inability to earn, what is the possibility that I could provide for my family into my retirement; especially if I am unable to work in my field past 40? Some might not deserve their pensions, but I, for one, think I deserve mine. If the federal government fucks with my retirement and disability benefits, I will have no choice but to leave the service and many other experienced leaders will too. They have already had us do more with less for so long, it is only a matter of time until the rumors that our paychecks will be casualties will come to fruition as well. This is a symptom of the larger problem: Output exceeds input. The system can only last for so long and the military is dealing with the same ominous destruction that the economy is facing. The military and the economy are both casualties to the political bickering of congress. This shortsightedness will cost us decades of rebuilding and we may never fully recover. And I agree. Soldiers are in a separate category, asked to do what most would not consider at the whim of soft-handed politicians. The pentagon budget needs to be cut on some of the worthless programs pushed by bring-home-the-bacon pols. Do we really need to be spending twice as much for our military as the combined rest of the world? Pensions for the troops, medical benefits, family support, and post-conflict GI benefits should be solidified and increased. It is quite different than a public desk job. Much of our military budget does in fact go for just what you are proposing should be supported - even increased! Make up your mind. :-)

You continual attempts at demonization are laughable, especially when you accuse others of doing what you practice routinely. Service goon! Regressive! Troll! Attila! Knuckledragger! *yawn*

Buzz. I don't oppose taxes that don't benefit me directly. But the money needs to be managed properly and the benefit to be worth the cost. Go look at your 1040 booklet and you'll see federal outlays all in black and white. Social programs hardly amount to a "crumb" -even compared to military outlays. And I never said I supported the profligate military/war spending. Cut the budget - it's bloated everywhere.

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much. But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-) Sorry if my sarcasm meter is not precise enough - but even I would have some issues with a 70% marginal rate and it's effect on innovation and investment. Regarding SS - we likely have a different philosophy. I have no pension and I don't think taxpayers should be paying for such for public employees. However, I strongly believe that a society is judged on how it treats its less fortunate. Yea - there is some small proportion that takes advantage of the system on the lower rungs of society. In comparision that pales to the upper income robber barons - seriously - see the film "An Inside Job" While I feel confident that I can take care of my own retitement I have no problem with my current obligation and a little more to SS to help out. Yea, I understand you opposition to taxes that don't benefit you directly - but quite frankly the issues involve what we want as a society as a whole. I don't like the present trend. OK to flush billions on the pentagon, but the cumbs for social programs are a threat. Get real. SS was never supposed to amount to a transfer payment - each person puts in $ and gets it back at retirement. You don't change the rules after they have been set. You are confusing SS with medicare/medicaid. Those payroll deductions do amount to transfer payments and are not capped at $106K. They benefit the lower income folks.

I guess it depends on how you define huge: I'd say the long-term effect on the country sucked - HTF do you manage such a tax give-away when getting us into two wars? Income - output, it ain't rocket science. $2543 helps for a fuck of a lot when you have two-parents working, childcare expenses, rising health-care costs, etc. Wars + Barry's and Bush's profligate spend thrift budgets. Cut the fucking budgets.

I don't want to put one more $.01 into SS. It is supposedly a "safety net" for retirement, and I'll take care of that myself, thanks very much. But I would ask why the tax brackets stop at $300K or whatever the top bracket currently is. You could have several bracket above that for say $500K, $1million, etc. I'd love for liberal Hollywood types and ball players to pay 50, 60, or 70% marginal rates. :-)

---I'd disagree, the tax cuts for the middle class were relatively modest per family but in aggreate are significantly adding to the deficit Indirectly - social security benefits are needed most at the bottom end of the bracket - those disabled and those with low retierment buffer. In budget talks (current example is appropriate) SS always seems to lead the discussion out of proportion to say more usless programs - pick almost any military one. Thus ensuring its stability by taxing the upper income brackets - seriously - why is income that is taxed capped at $106,800? WTF? In general, I would agree that it would not move the productivity/wage curve. But I didn't say it would. But I think it would move us closer to a more equitible society - or at least a more fair one. Yea - and that is a bias of mine. c'mon - just being straight with you. You are arguing about different things here. Let's stick to the wealthy are getting wealthier and poor are stagnating. How exactly do we affect that? I'd like to see quantifiable results behind any proposal, showing the before and after "plots", not just proposals thrown at the wall and the endless rhetorical games and name-calling (that last part would be j_bot, prole, etc) And I completely disagree with you about the effect of eliminating Bush-era cuts on the 28%-ile bracket. That effect on many in the middle class is huge. As for the deficit both Bush and Barry have contributed to that far more with spendthrift budgets than tax cuts or extensions thereof. With Bush we got wars, with Barry, we keep spending on wars and add to it with a few 100 billions here,there and everywhere.

Fair question. Part of it - I don't know - how do you encourage responsible corporate governance? I'm open to suggestions. The tax part - eliminate all the Bush tax cuts (including middle class ones), bump up the long-term investment/dividend tax, remove the cap on the upper limit for Social Security tax. 1) those plots show the lowest and highest earners only. Rolling back all the tax cuts fucks over the middle class - you know, the ones with two-income families, child-care expenses, etc. You seem pretty eager to do that without considering its impact. 2) ditto for cap on Social Security tax. And this tax affects the disparity in wealth how exactly, BTW? 3) if you were to simply rollback the taxes in the uppermost bracket and apply higher investment/divedend tax to just them, how exactly would that affect j_bot's plot? Wanna bet the effect is neglible, because I'd wager it amounts to naught. I smell something rotten in your proposal - an empty gesture to feel "good" and do "something".

Taxes include federal, state, local, real-estate, etc. All these plots are slanted for maximum effect. And like I asked before, your "solution" is what exactly? Or are you just like j-bot - lots of things to worry about and recycle and rehash?

And assuming you are correct, Jim, your solution is what exactly in a free society? Government-mandated profit-sharing? Wage-controls?

and this plot factors in taxes, transfer payments, and credits?

err, no: "The average two-income family earns far more today than did the single-breadwinner family of a generation ago. And yet, once they have paid the mortgage, the car payments, the taxes, the health insurance, and the day-care bills, today’s dual-income families have less discretionary income — and less money to put away for a rainy day — than the single-income family of a generation ago. And so the Two-Income Trap has been neatly sprung. Mothers now work two jobs, at home and at the office. And yet they have less cash on hand. Mom’s paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of keeping the children in the middle class." Your solution, comrade?

Liar! Your plotted "income" - does not factor other credits and transfer payments, of course.

Here you go j_bot:

We should buy you diapers and a pacifier.

Minimum wage should adjust annually with inflation/cost-of-living (and it doesn't). I'm not sure I'll buy into much beyond that.

"Easy" arguments are often fallacious. Many who make minimum wage are students and other folks entering the labor force or supplementing their income. My first two summer jobs were minimum wage.

not that j_bot would know anything about the latter...

Good fun! Thanks for the route conditions update (what a crazy snowpack)!

Where is inflation factored in?

Weird, 'cos the Dem's ran the whole show for 2 years, and got Jack Shit done.

don't bother the fucktards with facts Jay!

There'll be plenty of time for Backbone, my friend.

If you can lead easy rock, do Shuksan via the Sulphide and climb the arete rather than the gully. Camp high and get an early start and you can beat the masses. Or... consider the Boulder glacier route on Baker - it's a gem!

Nicely done! Molodets'!