Posts Tagged Taxes

On holidays and gift giving

It’s the end of the year. Time for the wasteful, inefficient tradition of exchanging presents. If you disagree, try reading Jeffrey Tucker’s Is Christmas Inefficient?, Bob Murphy’s Putting the Economics Back in Christmas or Joel Waldfogel’s Scroogenomics: Why You Shouldn’t Buy Presents for the Holidays.

Don’t get me wrong; I enjoy getting a good gift. To me, a good gift (assuming it’s tangible), like a good purchase, is something that I value more than the cost of the gift itself. A good gift is something that I would have purchased myself had I known about it. If the gift is something I wouldn’t have bought on my own, then it’s likely that I value the money spent on the gift more than the gift itself. Accordingly, I would have been happier with the money.

As anybody familiar with the holiday tradition knows, in most cases, exchanged gifts between two people should have approximately the same value. It’s this rule that’s put me in an awkward situation. Somebody who I didn’t plan on exchanging gifts with got me something. This something was expensive. Just how expensive? $42,105. A $42,105 gift is very expensive, especially coming from somebody who I didn’t plan on exchanging gifts with in the first place.

Just who spent $42,105 on a gift for me this year? Well it was the generous federal government. The government has “spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion… The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.” This gift was so generous, that Bloomberg decided to write an article about it!

Like most holiday gifts, it wasn’t something I wanted. In fact, I wish I’d never received it.

So now I’m in an awkward situation. The government spent $42,105 on a gift for me, and I got it nothing in return… and the year is almost over. I did what any prospective gift-buyer does. I snooped around. Trying to find out what the government really wanted, I started searching. On the FAQ’s for the Treasury, down at the very bottom of the page, I finally found it. The government wants more money! Even with the ability to make an infinite amount of worthless green paper, the government still wants more of it. Why? So it can go waste it on something else that we didn’t want in the first place.

The final Frequently Asked Question about the Public Debt:

Q. How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?

A. Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

So that’s what it wanted all along. As I write a check for $42,105, I wonder how this can possibly be a Frequently Asked Question. I wonder how many people would actually mail the Treasury more money than it already steals.  I wonder if anybody has ever used P.O. Box 2188 in Parkersburg, West Virginia. I get my head back together and focus in on the task.  I make sure to write a cheery holiday letter. I even throw in some holiday cookies. As I get ready to mail $42,105 to a P.O. Box in West Virginia, I try not to think about how shady a P.O. Box in West Virginia really is. Or even worse, how the government who thinks it can solve problems by throwing money at it, somehow thought it knew what I wanted for the holidays.

Tags: ,

Happy Holidays!

And many more!

Tags: , ,

A response to the comments on Daily Finance: Social Security COLA

A response to the comments on Daily Finance

The comment I posted on Daily Finance mentioning my recent post on the Social Security COLA has received a lot of comments. I won’t be responding to every comment, but I think it’s fair to group the comments into three types:

  • ad hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.
  • argumentum ad misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) the fallacy committed when pity or a related emotion such as sympathy or compassion is appealed to for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted.
  • actual coherent arguments – these arguments I appreciate and will respond to

The ad hominem attacks criticized me as a person, instead of arguing about what I said. I won’t bother responding to each of these attacks. Additionally, they were frequently misspelled – disiably for disability, diaphers for diapers, and my favorite, retarted for retarded. I’m sure most of these were typos and nothing more, but amusing none the less.

Examples of ad hominem:

linda said…
ROB, your evidently not retirement age, so that is why your thinking that way. just wait til your retirement age and then you will not be talking like that.

cynthia Flanagan said…
you sound like a lazy un-employed stiff…a baby who never knew hard work..

jerry said…
You probably voted for Obama & are on a disiably. Above the neck that is. One day you will be in the seniors place & then you can relate to your pass mistakes

ycav4424 said…
Rob is probably somebody’s snot nosed kid that has snuck onto their daddy’s computer to rile up people just for fun before he changes his wet bed sheets again so he can sleep dry for awhile.

MO said…
Once an idiot, always an idiot. I’m 66 yrs. old and worked all my life to get something I deserve. When you retire in a few years after you get out of your diaphers, are you going to turn down SS? Go crawl back under your rock you moron.

d r heller said…
rob and all the other imbeciles who have that type of attitude have to be living off their parents and have no concept what it is to be a retiree!

Mary said…
You are an jack ass.

gary said…
A LOT of folks here believe you are an asshole for making that remark. So it’s probably true. Have a nice day asshole!

Tom said…
Rob enjoys making idiot comments to see the reactions he gets…

EL said…
DUMB ROB, WAIT UNTIL YOU RETIRE, OR ARE YOU ONE OF THE LAZY ONES ON WELFARE?

ANDY said…
AREU RETARTED, OR AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT…

Les said…
What a dumb ass!!!!! I bet you still live with your mother. I hope you get sick and can’t work.

Slightly better than the ad hominem attacks, are the argumentum ad misericordiam. These arguments appeal to pity and sympathy to win an argument.

Examples of argumentum ad misericordiam:

lvn said…
At the senior complex I live in everyone got a letter stating…”due to the downturn in the economy there will be no more surplus food bags delivered to seniors.” 90% of the seniors here depend on that food to last them till the next SS check. At times (too many)cans were dented and once the soup can was not only caved in and rusted but expired 3 1/2 years prior. Weevils and bread smashed beyond recognition and 99% of all other foodstuffs were expired. Yet, if farmers were to give the animals this digusting food, government agencies would be down on them right away. Had one woman say she knew there were bugs and rancid food, but even the dog food she used to buy was too expensive now.

mary myers-agati said…
MY rent will go up next year and so will many other things food and other necessities. I am slowley going blind and cant afford surgery.

Susan said…
SAY THAT WHEN YOU RETIRE ASSHOLE AND YOU GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY EVERY YEAR… I TAKE CARE OF MY MOTHER WHO HAS ALZHEIMER’S. MAYBE WHEN YOU RETIRE, THERE WON’T BE ANY SOCIAL SECURITY LEFT, WHO YOU GONNA CRY TO THEN???

EL said…
SS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR HALF OF THE PEOPLE ON IT. SOMETIMES WE CAN T EVEN GET OUR MEDICINE

Finally come the actual coherent arguments. I will respond to these. Most people who tried to use coherent arguments had their comments voted down. If it wasn’t vicious or sympathetic, it just isn’t made for the Internet.

Bruce said…
If we happen to receive the $250 stimulus adjustment proposed by the President, please remember: this is a GIFT; you did nothing to EARN it; it is not now or in the future an ENTITLEMENT.

Bruce – The government is unproductive. It isn’t producing any of the ‘gift’ it gives you. It needs to raise money using its only three methods, inflation, taxation or borrowing. None of these are good. Since the money the government is gifting is taken by force from everybody else, it is not so much a gift, as it is theft.

Akela said…
So Rob, are you ready for YOUR parents, and or grandparents to move into your home with you?? I hope so ..

Akela – My parents saved throughout their lives so that they could be self-sufficient when they retired. If, for whatever reason, they were unable to provide for themselves, I would take them in without hesitation.

cruisedoc said…
…Payments need to be adjusted for inflation for obvious reasons. However, when their is no inflation, or negative inflation (deflation) as their is this year, then there is no rational argument for an increase. There should be no COL increase when the COL doesn’t increase. If I were on SS I would just be glad that I get it when the COL goes up and don’t get it decreased when the COL goes down. It’s kind of like getting your cake and eating it too. I think America is fair w/ seniors, after all, they paid in pennies on the dollar for what they get out; now they should in turn be fair and be thankful that it is tied to the inflation rate.

For making a coherent argument, cruisedoc had his comment voted down with mine.

Jenine said…
You just need attention. What a very ignorant remark to make. Some of these seniors get checks for less than $200 a month. Did you realize that before you mouthed off? Can you live on $187.00 a month? NO. Before you make comments without all the facts you should look and listen. Back when these people started working they made less than $1.00 a day!! Most states now the minimum hourly wage is $7.00 an hour. You should apologize to those people. You expect a raise and they deserve every one they get.

Jenine – Social Security (assuming it must exist), should serve as a supplemental income source, not as the single income source. I can’t live on $187 per month, and for that reason, I am saving money each month. So I can provide for myself. I don’t expect SS to provide me benefits when I’m older. Social Security has created a moral hazard where people have become entirely reliant on Social Security and can expect large increases. Once this system is in place, people feel little need to save and provide for themselves. Social Security is a self-perpetuating moral hazard.

Then came the group of attacks explaining that SS needs to be raised because the cost of living has gone up and the private sector has been increasing wages.

redconvoy said…
They need the increase to live. You can’t live on the same thing year after year with the cost of living going up and their Medicare premiums. So where ever you work, maybe you shouldn’t have a raise. See how you could live on your same salary year after year!

Teresa said…
Why would you say such a thing. Doesn’t cost of living go up each year. How do you expect people to survive if the cost of living goes up every year but yet the income does not go up.. mmmm If you know a trick please fill us fixed income ppl in. We would love to know how to do that.

BEAR said…
TELL ME SOMETHING BOY, DO YOU GET A COST OF LIVING RAISE OR ANY TYPE OF RAISE.

Sue said…
Last year I got a 3 cent raise. After 3 years with the company. The SS crowd needs to realize that those of us PAYING for them are having a hard time. I will never retire.

These arguments fail to note that many large companies in the private sector did not receive raises for two years. In fact, many companies are having pay cuts across the board. See the articles from Time and CNN. Of course, there are also the millions of people who received 100% pay cuts in the past 18 months. Sue made a similar argument, and accordingly, had her comment voted down.

I appreciate constructive criticism and other feedback on my article. However, it seems that most commenters prefer to just complain. If you have an opinion about my writing, please use a valid argument. Don’t just make personal attacks and pleas for pity.

For all of the people making constructive arguments, both for and against me, thank you.

Tags: , ,

Social Security COLA

The Social Security COLA is one tough drink to swallow. That’s why it’s being forced down our throats.

Every year since 1975, Social Security recipients have received a cost of living adjustment. According to the official website of the Social Security Administration,

Legislation enacted in 1973 provides for automatic cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs. With COLAs, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits keep pace with inflation.

The same site goes on to say,

The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining each COLA. In general, a COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next. If there is no increase, there is no COLA.

The COLA has added up over the years. The following chart shows the annual COLA and the value of $100 in Social Security payments in constant 1975 dollars. A $100 payment in 1974 has increased four-fold, now valued at $407.

Social Security Cola

According to the Social Security Administration, the COLA is given to ensure that people dependent on Social Security are able to maintain their standard of living. Accordingly, the claim is made that, “If there is no increase, there is no COLA.” That’s their statement and they’re sticking to it. Instead of giving a COLA, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio is proposing a one-time payment of $250 in 2010. This one-time payment ignores the $250 one-time payment to Social Security recipients paid as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. DeFazio’s new payment is suggested in H.R.3597 – Emergency Senior Citizens Relief Act of 2009. Emergency relief? Will $250 make such a difference that this should be qualified as an Emergency? No. Emergency is just the default first word of any new legislation.

To pay these 50 million Social Security recipients, the legislation is proposing an increased Social Security payroll tax. The tax will include incomes between $250,000 and $359,000 in 2010, instead of the regular, first $106,800. This is another tax on the productive, to pay the unproductive.

According to 68 year old Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who introduced similar legislation to the Senate.

The bottom line is that seniors deserve a fair increase in benefits to keep up with these added costs and economic hardships

Since in 2009 there is expected deflation of 1.5%, Social Security payments should be cut. In order to maintain the standard of living, Social Security recipients should receive a 1.5% reduction in payments. Instead, they’ll receive no reduction and a one-time two-time stimulus of $250. This is legal.

According to Section 215(i)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act

the term “cost-of-living computation quarter” means a base quarter, as defined in subparagraph (A)(i), with respect to which the applicable increase percentage is greater than zero; except that there shall be no cost-of-living computation quarter in any calendar year if in the year prior to such year a law has been enacted providing a general benefit increase under this title or if in such prior year such a general benefit increase becomes effective

It’s only a matter of time before we see the third one-time Social Security stimulus.

Tags: , ,

Baseline budgeting

“The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress.” – Ron Paul

“I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.” In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending levels represent only a baseline starting point. Both parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the only issue being how much more. If Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while Democrats seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is not the same as reducing it.” - Ron Paul

Tags: , ,