home bbs files messages ]

Just a sample of the Echomail archive

Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.

   DEBATE      Enjoy opinions shoved down your throat      4,105 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 3,144 of 4,105   
   BOB KLAHN to EARL CROASMUN   
   Social Security Going Bro   
   14 Jun 29 15:26:28   
   
    ...   
      
   >> Somehow the idea that moving increases up from 2030 to current   
   >> years doesn't increase government revenue to be spent now is a   
   >> bit absurd.   
      
    EC> Your attempt to twist the facts is what is "absurd."  The   
    EC> law did not jump the 1984 tax rate up to the 2030 rate.  It   
    EC> slightly accelerated Carter's tax increases.  Specifically,   
    EC> the 1985 rate increase got moved up to 1984, the   
    EC> already-passed increases for 1985-87 remained the same,   
    EC> part of the already-passed 1990 increase got moved up to   
    EC> 1988, and the already-passed increases from 1990 to 2030   
    EC> remained the same.   
      
    IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,   
    but you ignore the original point.   
      
    EC> Look at your story.  Look at the facts.  Do you see the   
    EC> vast difference? Anyone else would.   
      
    Do you see where you ever gave a link to your sources? No one   
    would.   
      
    EC> So, as far as the increased tax rates, leaving out the   
    EC> other provisions of the law, taxpayers paid a little more   
    EC> (and the SS trust fund got a little more) in 1984 than   
    EC> would have been the case if the changes had not passed.  In   
      
    And all of what the trust fund got was available and spent on   
    other functions.   
      
    EC> 1985, 86, and 87, they payed THE SAME RATE as they would   
      
    EC> The increases were already scheduled to take place.   
    EC> Taxpayers paid a little more in 1988 and 89 than they would   
      
    Yet you still don't give your source.   
      
    EC> Is that simple enough for you to understand YET?   
      
    What do you mean "yet"? When you give facts we can argue them.   
    Adding them later is your way of spinning the debate. Above all,   
    not giving your sources is your way of giving alleged facts that   
    are hard to check.   
      
   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)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca