Mine...mine...IT'S ALL MINE! *cue the scary music*

Did you see the roll-out of the new Trump Tax Reform Plan yesterday?  Have you actually read it?  If you have, it probably didn't take you more than a minute or so as it's really not a "plan", but just a few bullet points.  Here it is if you're interested:

That's it.  This is what The Prez and his Team have been working on for the past 98 days.  Honestly, it looks like something I might have whipped out at 2am the night before a college paper topic outline was due.  I give it a half hour effort, max.

In short, it's insulting.  It seems at first glance to give a break to the middle class by increasing the Standard Deduction, but also seems to take away some possible deductions, too, most notably property TAX deductions.  Property INTEREST deductions appear to be left intact.  What will the middle-class bottom line look like?  Probably either "revenue neutral" (Gubment speak for "no change") or maybe a slight tax cut, just enough to give the incumbent Congressman a good shot at re-election, which is all he cares about.

On the other side, corporations, notably including privately held corporations like Trump, Inc, will make out like absolute bandits!  It will result in tax cuts, on paper at least, to small businesses like mine, but it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what the ultra-wealthy will get.  Let's face it, this is simply another wealth transfer to the rich.  They haven't even made much of an effort to disguise it.  We reportedly already have approx $1.7 TRILLION +/- parked in short term investments looking for a better place.  Another trillion dollars isn't needed....there is NO shortage of investment capital.

The bean counters say the tax cut will leave the Treasury short by approx one TRILLION dollars, to be offset by the ever popular "future growth" somewhere in the future.  Maybe.  Hopefully.

The one possible good thing in there:  The one-time opportunity for corporations to bring back earnings from overseas that they haven't before now because of the higher taxes that would be due here.  This has been done before (so much for "one-time") with minimal success, as it didn't create the new jobs it promised.  Instead companies used their windfall for stock buy-backs and dividends, which *big surprise* went primarily to the already wealthy.

Those who read my protestations will again probably accuse me of being a pinko anti-capitalist, but nothing could be further from the truth.  I am an ARDENT capitalist, one who understands it is the middle class that is truly the goose that laid America's golden egg, and who is trying to see to it it isn't slaughtered.  Right now, in Washington at least, words like mine are like a lonely voice in the forest.

When you stiff the middle class and concentrate too much wealth in the hands of too few, you get Czarist Russia 1917 (revolution), America 1929 (Great Depression), TWA under Carl Icahn, (bankrupt), Eastern Airlines under Frank Lorenzo (kaput), etc.  When companies share their wealth, you get wildly successful stories like The Staubach Companies (Roger Staubach), Broadcast.com (Mark Cuban), Ford (after Henry Ford doubled employee wages), Southwest Airlines, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and more.  The owners actually made MORE money thanks to the efforts of their grateful employees than they EVER made before. Come on people....this ain't rocket surgery!

*sigh*

Rough landing ahead.  Hold on.

S

Are we being played for chumps?

The "fiscal cliff" is apparently the only news out there these days.  That's all I hear...fiscal cliff...fiscal cliff...blah...blah...blah.  Both sides agree spending will have to be cut.  The devil will be in the details, I understand, but at least it's a start.  The sticking point is taxing the rich.  The Democrats say it will bring in a gazillion dollars and help reduce the deficit.  The Republicans say it will cripple job creation.

Here is my question:  How will raising taxes on the rich, the "job creators", hinder hiring?

The argument seems to be that if taxes go up on the rich (actually if the Bush tax cuts aren't extended to the rich), they won't have the capital (money) to finance new entrepreneurs or fund business expansion, therefore no new jobs.  

Here's the fly in that ointment....the rich already have TRILLIONS of dollars (the Wall Street Journal estimates $1-2 Trillion) sitting on the sidelines not currently invested.  Our economy isn't strong enough to support all these new businesses the Republicans envision, and there isn't any place in China or Europe to invest this money either.  (China is slowing and Europe is a basket case.)  It just sits.

The money to invest in new job creation is there NOW.  How will any MORE money in the pockets of the wealthy create any new jobs?  This money has been in their pockets for a DECADE, since the GW Bush administration.  So where are the jobs?

Somebody please (honest question) explain in terms I can understand how tax cuts to the rich will somehow create new jobs while the money sitting there right now can't?

The wealthy seem to like the sound of the term "job creators" and have made it their justification for existing, and their Republican puppets in Congress happily spout it every chance they get without ever explaining it.

In fairness, let me admit right now I think an entirely different set of special interests are pulling the strings on their (Democratic) puppets in Congress, too.  It's a pretty sleazy game they play in Washington and you and I are the big losers.  If you'll just follow the money trail you'll see who the big winners are.

S

TAXPAYER RIPOFF ALERT

According to a recent USA Today report 21,000 retired federal workers receive a lifetime government pension (from YOU, the taxpayer) of $100,000 or more per year.

Those would include 326 DEA agents, 237 IRS investigators, 186 FBI agents, 444 Social Security agents, and...wait for it...714 retired postal workers.  POSTAL WORKERS for cryin' out loud!  One retired Smithsonian zoologist receives a $162,000 annual lifetime pension, and six other retired federal workers receive over $200,000 per year for life!

Gimme a second to regain my composure.... *deep breath*

By comparison, consider this:  The average federal pension is $32,824.  The average state and local government pension is $24,373.  The average social security recipient receives $14,760.  (The absolute maximum a social security recipient can receive is $30,156.)

Want a bit more sand kicked in your face?  The average federal employee retired at age 59.4 years old, and had served for 27.8 years (2006 statistics).  Full Social Security eligibility for the rest of us isn't until age 65-67. 

True, years ago government salaries were below private sector pay, which is why the retirement benefits were more generous, but those days are long gone.  Today federal government employees make 25-33% MORE than their friends in the private sector for comparable work.

Here's my point:  With a trillion dollar federal deficit every year as far into the future as we can see, and with virtually everything on the table for possible cuts, why aren't federal pay and benefit reforms on the table, too?  (If there is a major restructuring underway now that I'm not aware of, please enlighten me.)

IMO federal employee pay and benefits should be brought to parity with those in the private sector.  Pay, benefits, pension, retirement age....everything!  Why should civil servants have it SO much better than the taxpayers who are paying them? 

I suggest you contact your congressman and register your outrage!  Oh, wait....he's an overpaid federal employee, too.  (And besides, right now he's on vacation.)   *sigh*

S

EDIT:  Let me add this for the benefit of a retired federal employee friend of mine....once you're retired, your pension should not be tampered with....with one caveat.  If some day Congress deems it necessary to cut existing Social Security recipient's benefits, then the same % cuts should apply to retired federal worker's benefits, too.

A couple of questions....

It's obvious that Social Security and especially Medicare are going to be the hot button issues of the upcoming presidential election.  It's all about cutting the deficit, and these two things will bear the brunt of any budget reforms.

My questions are:

Are you reasonably happy with Medicare as it exists now, or are you just comfortable with it because it is a known quantity?  

Do you just accept Medicare with all it's flaws because you are afraid of the alternative?

Are you afraid a voucher-type senior health care program will force seniors to pay money out of pocket (that they may or may not have) in order to get comparable coverage to what Medicare offers now?  In other words, in your mind, is a voucher-type system a step backwards?

All Hail King Steve!

"Latest figures from the US Treasury Department show that the country has an operating cash balance of $73.7bn.  Apple's most recent financial results put its reserves at $76.4bn." (BBC News)

Isn't the solution to the deficit/debt ceiling crisis obvious?  Fire all the politicians and let (Apple CEO) Steve Jobs fix things.  ;)

S