Combining three short messages on the same topic into one.

 ...

 EC> The "actual question" in this case was your desire to call
 EC> them Reagan's tax increases, thus ignoring the fact that a
 EC> bipartisan recommended them, a bipartisan majority in both
 EC> houses of Congress passed them, and they were simply a
 EC> slight acceleration of Carter's already-in-place tax
 EC> increases.

 ...

 Well, I decided to get the original source. So I found the
 Greenspan commission report online. Turns out I was right on all
 points.

 The only question is, were you ignorant of what actually
 happened? If you were than you shot off your mouth, or keyboard,
 over something you knew nothing about. OTOH, if you knew then
 you lied.

 ...

>> They may well have. Doesn't change the fact that it did not
>> solve the problems, we are facing them again.

 EC> That was thirty years ago.  Once again your "response" is
 EC> meaningless and empty, as well as wandering off the point.

 That "solution" was supposed to make social security solvent for
 decades beyong this time. It didn't work, neither will any
 solution they come up with now that follows the same pattern.

>> all it really did was
>> give the federal government more money to spend today without
>> raising taxes other than social security taxes, which apply to
>> the workers, not investors.

 EC> It gave the government more money to spend ON SOCIAL
 EC> SECURITY PAYMENTS, thus avoiding going into the red.  You
 EC> keep repeating this mistake, without showing any sign that
 EC> you know what you are talking about.

 You call yourself an economist, but you don't even know, all the
 Social Security surplus goes into Treasury bonds that constitute
 a loan to the federal government. That money goes straight into
 the general revenue, with nothing but the bonds left in the
 trust fund.

 The general revenue pays for government spending. Thus, all the
 surplus went straight into current spending, not into some vault
 somewhere.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> it put more money into the pot for the government
>>>> to spend.

>>> To spend on Social Security.  You still aren't getting this
>>> simple fact.

>> To spend on other things at that time, with a promise it would
>> be there 20 or 30 or 40 years in the future.

 EC> You are contending that in 1983 the federal government
 EC> could take money from the SS trust fund and spend it on
 EC> "other things."  You really don't have a clue.

 OMG! You are displaying an incredible level of ignorance. Try to
 look it up, or ask any economist, even a right winger. All of
 the paryroll tax revenue deposited into the Social Security
 Trust fund goes, immediately, into treasury bonds, and those
 bonds are what the government holds in the trust fund, not the
 cash. All money invested in T-bonds then goes into the general
 funds, and is spent on govt appropriations.

 IOW, everything I said is literally true.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------

 ...

>> IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,
>> but you ignore the original point.

 EC> To recap, you claimed that the 1983 social security changes
 EC> constituted a huge tax increase.  I pointed out that it

 It did. The Greenspan commission gave two periods of change, the
 sort term, 1983 to 1989, and long term, beyond 1989. The short
 term was Reagan's time in office.

 According to the Greenspan committee report, the intent was to
 increase revenue, under the short term period, IOW Reagan's
 term, aprox $150-$200 billion. Back in 1983 that was a huge
 increase. The report states that the changes they came up with
 produced about $168 Billion in increased revenue.

 EC> broadened the tax BASE in several ways, and increased the

 IOW, increased revenue.

 EC> tax rates by slightly accelerating CARTER's
 EC> already-in-place rate increases, resulting in people paying
 EC> slightly more in 1984, 1988, and 1989 and THE SAME in the

 IOW, during Reagan's term. Remember, the govt works on a fiscal
 year, and 1989 was Reagan's last fiscal year.

 EC> remaining thirty-three years, compared to what they would
 EC> have paid in the ABSENCE of the 1983 changes.  I did not

 IOW, give Reagan more to spend. Just what I said.

 EC> dispute the details, I supplied the details that you were
 EC> ignorant of.  And you did not dispute the details.  You
 EC> just ignore them.

 I did point out that your details supported my claims. Now I
 have even more to add. The Greenspan report said accelerating
 the tax increase would increase the Reagan administration
 revenue by $40 Billion. Note: not one penny of additional for
 later administrations since they would have had the increase
 anyway. Whether you like it or not, that is a tax increase under
 Reagan.

 That is also about 25% of the total $168 Billion they projected.
 So, that was a total tax increase under Reagan of $168 billion.

 All non-increase changes totaled less than $2 billion, so I am
 not going to bother with them here. All the long term
 projections totaled less than $2 billion and had no effect on
 Reagan's time, so I am ignoring them also.

 And that was a lot of money in a year when the defict was $208
 Billion, and the total federal spending was $601 Billion.

 Oh, and you also left out that Moynihan tried to get the changes
 repealed when he realized that all they had accomplished was to
 give Reagan, and Bush I, more money to spend under cover of the
 trust fund. Moynihan was one of the commission members.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)