These people are deranged. They are owned by George Soros and the Chinese Communists. Nancy thinks defending the border is a bad idea and Hillary wants to give everyone $5000. I don’t think so!
Yes, the democrats are owned by George Soros and the Chinese Communists. That’s very good, very clear thinking. You guys are smart. You’d probably vote Nixon over McGovern all over again. Smart!
Actually McGovern over Nixon would have turned Vietnam and its aftermath into a completely Democratic debacle no? So maybe you would have voted Nixon over McGovern too so you wouldn’t have to triangulate your way out of another failure.
There are a number of young women who have babies for status and to get a better position on the welfare role. Now we’ll have 3 reasons? Status, welfare money and 5 grand instant cash!
If Hillary gets this passed I would not want to be a bedspring.
Three points:
1) Hillary’s proposal was in the form of government bonds, correct? In other words, they are a piece of the national debt. Thus, Hillary would in effect be raising the babies’ share of the debt from 27,000 to 32,000 to pay them that extra $5000. In other words, Hillary needs to take money out of somebody’s pocket through taxes/fees to give it to their children/grandchildren. I personally would rather write the check directly to my children than write a check for $6000 to the government to get back $5000 (after overhead).
2) If invested in Treasury bonds (where the government can control it), this money will barely keep up with inflation. Assuming that the Treasury yield is 4.5% and inflation is 3.5%, over 65 years, this money would be worth $9,000 adjusted for inflation ($87000 non-adjusted). If people were allowed to invest this money in the stock market (preferably tax-free), it would be worth $2.4 million (262,000 in today’s dollars).
3) If Hillary really wants to help out young families, she would let us fund IRAs for young children up to the adult limit, even though they have no earned income. Given 65 years of compounding, every dollar invested will be worth about $52 adjusted for inflation.
It’s Friday night, it’s late, and I am: sick-to-death of Hillary, her ilk and all of the empty-headed, non-thinking, poor-misguided-open-mouthed-slavering followers/adherents of ‘that’ particular political party;
therefore:
A SALUTE to all and each of our GentleHosts:
(Tom raises a sweating glass (half filled with a caramel-colored-carbonated-beverage, diet) and proclaims)
A TOAST:
To Scott: Thank you for ‘finding’: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, a site that would appear to be perfect for my “Wasted Days and Wasted Nights” persona;
To Paul: Good Plan: 1972 would ‘catch’ my son, however, we need to back up to 1970 to offer my daughter (ERA and all that) the same offer;
To John: Who done-done all the heavy lifting in writing the article that gave Scott, Paul and Tom the opportunity to shine;
and: To My Fellow GentleBeings: go raise some hell tonight, take two aspirin and, in the morning, reflect on the mystery-of-life.
Tom
ps: and, yes, it has been a colon-night (in more ways than one)
pps: I just noticed that the posting ‘time’ has rolled past midnight, so: To ME: Happy Anniversary on the occasion of my Birth!
Imagine that it’s the first Presidential debate of ‘08. Hillary has just given an answer in which she touted her $5,000 newborn credit, and now it’s the Republican’s turn. He begins, “It may surprise you to learn that I, too, am in favor of a newborn credit. But I propose a credit of not five, but ten thousand dollars per child.” A moment of stunned silence ensues. Then he continues, “Of course I’m only kidding. I’m here to earn the votes of the American people, not buy them.”
It’s Friday night, it’s late, and I am: sick-to-death of Hillary, her ilk and all of the empty-headed, non-thinking, poor-misguided-open-mouthed-slavering followers/adherents of ‘that’ particular political party;
therefore:
A SALUTE to all and each of our GentleHosts:
(Tom raises a sweating glass (half filled with a caramel-colored-carbonated-beverage, diet) and proclaims)
A TOAST:
To Scott: Thank you for ‘finding’: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/, a site that would appear to be perfect for my “Wasted Days and Wasted Nights” persona;
To Paul: Good Plan: 1972 would ‘catch’ my son, however, we need to back up to 1970 to offer my daughter (ERA and all that) the same offer;
To John: Who done-done all the heavy lifting in writing the article that gave Scott, Paul and Tom the opportunity to shine;
and: To My Fellow GentleBeings: go raise some hell tonight, take two aspirin and, in the morning, reflect on the mystery-of-life.
Tom
ps: and, yes, it has been a colon-night (in more ways than one)
pps: I just noticed that the posting ‘time’ has rolled past midnight, so: To ME: Happy Anniversary on the occasion of my Birth!
Thanks for the kind words. Just be sure to take a couple of aspirin before turning in!
If we assume it is a “lockbox” until age 18 the next question is what it could be used for. Savings bonds currently purchased can be used with no tax on the interst for education of the person or dependent children for defined educational expenses. Hillary Clinton also suggested it “might” be used for a home down payment. There is no current tax exempt provision for that savings bond now purchased and used for a future house so a new law would be needed there. That would be dicey to try to regulate (what if some wanted to used the money to start or buy a business. Probably the best they could do is have the interest tax free id used for tuition at post secondary schools where the students are eleigle for government insured student loans. This is basically the criteria for recent savings bonds used for education.
Otherwise the peroson would likely be tax on the interest (or perhaps it all) if they took the money out for something other than tuition.
The “Vietnam era” far left protest movement was funded in large by “trust fund babies”. Some well meaning relative but a kid in the will with the provison that they couldn’t get access to the money before age 18. Let’ just say the “activists” of the day tended to “wine and dine” the “trust fund baby” who was now over eighteen and $5,000 in an account they could now access. (multiply by four or five to get todays value.)
Happy birthday John. I know about the “Vietnam era” “trust fund babies” through my research on the Symbionese Liberation Army for my http://soliah.com
A Citizens Basic Income (CBI - roughly what McGovern proposed) is not necessarily a BAD thing. It could well help with tax and welfare reform if done correctly. For example I did thesums last year for the UK and a CBI helped me cut out vast swathes of the government. The thing is that you have to look at it as a REPLACEMENT for other forms of welfare not an ADDITION to them. In my calculations (linked above) I tied it to a flat tax of 20% on all non CBI income. In the US I would imagine this would be lower although you could leave it there and remove a bunchaton of other taxes. In the UK we don’t have mortgage tax relief for a US version you would definitely need to model the effects of removing that tax break, particularly on the low income subprime borrowers.
A CBI does have a couple of major advantages. Firstly it prices home-grown low wage labour cheaper than immigrant labour because home grown labour receives the CBI which immigrant labour doesn’t which means that for LOW WAGE jobs, where the CBI is a significant fraction of the worker’s income, native employees can make a reasonable living on far lower wages than immigrants can. If (for example) a CBI is $200/week then you could pay natives in McJobs $100 a week and they get a reasonable income because they would receive $300/week. On the other hand immigrants who would nto be eligable for the CBI would get just $100/week which is not something they can live on.
Secondly it tends to remove the high marginal rates of income tax that trap people in poverty. I can’t speak to the US but in the UK a person who currently earns £200/week ($400) and gets a pay rise to £300/week will see about £97 of his £100 pay rise go straight to the taxman.
Yes, the democrats are owned by George Soros and the Chinese Communists. That’s very good, very clear thinking. You guys are smart. You’d probably vote Nixon over McGovern all over again. Smart!
A Citizens Basic Income (CBI - roughly what McGovern proposed) is not necessarily a BAD thing. It could well help with tax and welfare reform if done correctly. For example I did thesums last year for the UK and a CBI helped me cut out vast swathes of the government. The thing is that you have to look at it as a REPLACEMENT for other forms of welfare not an ADDITION to them. In my calculations (linked above) I tied it to a flat tax of 20% on all non CBI income. In the US I would imagine this would be lower although you could leave it there and remove a bunchaton of other taxes. In the UK we don’t have mortgage tax relief for a US version you would definitely need to model the effects of removing that tax break, particularly on the low income subprime borrowers.
A CBI does have a couple of major advantages. Firstly it prices home-grown low wage labour cheaper than immigrant labour because home grown labour receives the CBI which immigrant labour doesn’t which means that for LOW WAGE jobs, where the CBI is a significant fraction of the worker’s income, native employees can make a reasonable living on far lower wages than immigrants can. If (for example) a CBI is $200/week then you could pay natives in McJobs $100 a week and they get a reasonable income because they would receive $300/week. On the other hand immigrants who would nto be eligable for the CBI would get just $100/week which is not something they can live on.
Secondly it tends to remove the high marginal rates of income tax that trap people in poverty. I can’t speak to the US but in the UK a person who currently earns £200/week ($400) and gets a pay rise to £300/week will see about £97 of his £100 pay rise go straight to the taxman.
That’s very interesting, but how does it relate to Hillary’s baby credit proposal? The credit would be a one time gift not related to income, and it would be in addition to other programs.
